Hi,
Le 04/18/12 07:22, jbem...@zonnet.nl a écrit :
Many architectures already have the patches for the various kernel
versions ( e.g. patches-3.0, patches-3.1, patches-3.3 ). This is why I
all I had to do was change the kernel version from 3.0.18 to 3.3.2 for
my brcm63xx target (I first did
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 00:41 -0600, Otto Solares Cabrera wrote:
When was it last updated? Will it ever be updated again? Who decides?
Well, you better take a visit to the bug tracking manager, for a small
un-important feature set (like mine) a kernel upgrade normally works
fine, increase the
Hi,
Le 04/18/12 15:20, David Woodhouse a écrit :
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 00:41 -0600, Otto Solares Cabrera wrote:
When was it last updated? Will it ever be updated again? Who decides?
Well, you better take a visit to the bug tracking manager, for a small
un-important feature set (like mine) a
Regarding the problem of users playing with config options and not
mentioning it, part of the solution could be to require users to submit
their .config files when reporting issues. In such a case, having the
kernel version in there too would actually be better than relying on
users
Many architectures already have the patches for the various kernel
versions ( e.g. patches-3.0, patches-3.1, patches-3.3 ). This is why I
all I had to do was change the kernel version from 3.0.18 to 3.3.2 for
my brcm63xx target (I first did 3.3.1, but then found that 3.3.2 was
the latest)
You seem to have a very stance; is this even up for discusion or will it come
down to a principled over my dead body? :)
On 2012-04-14 9:37 PM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
The Linux kernel version is an important configuration aspect still
missing from menuconfig. It should be possible to have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Compiling anything is for developers. Whatever helps is a Good Thing;
nobody expects the holy grail.
Adding a version symbol the way it was proposed in the patch does not
help, it increases our maintenance burden and implies that changing the
On 2012-04-16 7:29 PM, Peter Laufenberg wrote:
You seem to have a very stance; is this even up for discusion or
will it come down to a principled over my dead body? :)
I'm still waiting for somebody to demonstrate to me that this is
actually useful in a *meaningful* way. So far (to me) the
Felix,
Regarding the problem of users playing with config options and not
mentioning it, part of the solution could be to require users to submit
their .config files when reporting issues. In such a case, having the
kernel version in there too would actually be better than relying on
users
On 2012-04-16 10:23 PM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
Felix,
Regarding the problem of users playing with config options and not
mentioning it, part of the solution could be to require users to submit
their .config files when reporting issues. In such a case, having the
kernel version in there
On 2012-04-13 9:01 PM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
A grep for LINUX_VERSION in target/linux/*/Makefile shows that OpenWRT
current uses a large number of different kernel versions for the various
platforms. While there may be reasons for using a particular version, it
would be nice if newer
The Linux kernel version is an important configuration aspect still missing
from menuconfig. It should be possible to have the full config in a single
.config file; Makefiles are the wrong place for setting this parameter.
I agree it would be uncommon to change this, that's why it is a developer
On 2012-04-14 9:37 PM, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
The Linux kernel version is an important configuration aspect still
missing from menuconfig. It should be possible to have the full config
in a single .config file; Makefiles are the wrong place for setting this
parameter.
I agree it would be
A grep for LINUX_VERSION in target/linux/*/Makefile shows that OpenWRT
current uses a large number of different kernel versions for the various
platforms. While there may be reasons for using a particular version, it
would be nice if newer kernels were available for those platforms that
14 matches
Mail list logo
