Sorry I didn't reply earlier. Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thought you had removed busybox and were using the .deb now... > I guess that is just the woody version? Yes, just woody. > Regardless, if you are > going to be doing some backporting, would you mind if I modernize > a few other selected things? For starters, I think we would be > wise to backport a few other fixes. I don't mind if you wanna back port some busybox fixes into the ancient version in Potato. Try to keep it to a minimum if possible, just fixing crippling stuff. > Initially, I would like to backport init.c so we get 2.4 kernel > support. (which will silence a lot of bug reports before they > happen). Is this agreeable? I don't think this is necessary for the potato version because we absolutely don't support 2.4 in Potato. As for the woody version, we're using busybox.deb. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onshored.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
