Tom Rini writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 06:38:02PM +1000, Murray Jensen wrote:
>> Hi, I see that the linuxppc_2_5 bk tree has disappeared from fsmlabs, and >> has been replaced with a linuxppc_2_4_devel tree. Could someone in the >> know please post a quick update what this means, and perhaps what the >> future holds wrt 2.4/2.5 linuxppc (embedded)? > > I was hoping Cort would mention this here, but 2_5 has been 'dead' for a > while and is finally gone too. There's still mirrors of it however. > It will exist again, but when 2.5.0 appears and will be based off the > linux_2_4 tree or so. Right now 2_4_devel isn't up to date wrt 8xx/4xx, and > some new boards 2_5 had. I'm working on it. :) Oh, lovely. I'm very glad to have ignored this BitKeeper nonsense for the most part then. I knew there was a good reason to rely on the one true source tree from Linus. I'm not screwed like all the people working from linuxppc_2_5 are. On the other hand, I had to do my own PowerCore 6750 VME port for the 2.4 kernel. That sucked. It would be nice if everyone had the decency to submit stuff to Linus in a way that he finds acceptable, rather than hoarding source code in obscure places that are only accessible via non-standard non-free software. So, how did _you_ know that 2_5 has been 'dead' for a while? ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
