paul_c wrote:
> >Attached, configure & make logs for emc2-2.1.7 released on July 30th.
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:46:38AM -0400, Jack Ensor wrote:
> Thanks, Paul. I already downloaded 2.1.7 via the update manager a day
> or so ago. What I don't understand is your file is only about 8K and
> wh
Thanks, Paul. I already downloaded 2.1.7 via the update manager a day
or so ago. What I don't understand is your file is only about 8K and
when I updated it was over 5M. Why the difference or do I need to do
something with what you sent me?
Jack Ensor
paul_c wrote:
>Attached, configure & ma
There may be a problem with your network. I asked on our IRC channel if
anyone is having trouble accessing that page, and nobody reported any
problems. 7 people besides me reported that they could access the page.
For your benefit:
:r!wget -O - -o /dev/null
'http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src
uot;Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)"
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] emc2 and kernel 2.6.20
> On Friday 03 August 2007 19:46, Jeff Epler wrote:
>> http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/rtapi/rtai_rtapi.c.diff?r1=1.34;r2=1.35
>
>
> wget
&
On Friday 03 August 2007 19:46, Jeff Epler wrote:
> http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/rtapi/rtai_rtapi.c.diff?r1=1.34;r2=1.35
wget
'http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/rtapi/rtai_rtapi.c.diff?r1=1.34;r2=1.35'
--20:40:43--
http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/rtapi/rtai_rtapi.c.diff?r1=1.34
The problem you report is fixed in CVS TRUNK:
http://cvs.linuxcnc.org/cvs/emc2/src/rtapi/rtai_rtapi.c.diff?r1=1.34;r2=1.35
this patch should apply cleanly to the 2.1 branch.
Jeff
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splun
Attached, configure & make logs for emc2-2.1.7 released on July 30th.
config.log.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
make.log.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Sti
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 07:39:02PM -0500, Jeff Epler wrote:
>
> To pick just one of paul's pieces of FUD for a reply, he asserts:
>
> > If it is any consolation, the current "official" release goes tits up
> > with a 2.6.20 kernel, and by the time 2.6.30 comes out, major surgery
> > will be require
To pick just one of paul's pieces of FUD for a reply, he asserts:
> If it is any consolation, the current "official" release goes tits up
> with a 2.6.20 kernel, and by the time 2.6.30 comes out, major surgery
> will be required.
I have been playing with a 64-bit kernel 2.6.20.12 and the developme
