linux-apus-devel

status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Sven L. <sve...@wa...>]

Hello,

As you may know, i am currently the maintainer of the powerpc debian
kernel, and i plan to move to the -benh bitkeeper tree for the 2.4.24
packages.

I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.

I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Hi,

Sven Luther wrote:

> I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> 
> I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?

It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef, 
so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of 
the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.

bye, Roman

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Sven L. <sve...@wa...>]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:59:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> >patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> >
> >I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> >this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> >this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> >and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?
> 
> It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef, 
> so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of 
> the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.

Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
linuxppc-2.4 one ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:59:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > >I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> > >patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> > >
> > >I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> > >this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> > >this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> > >and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?
> >
> > It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef,
> > so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of
> > the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.
>
> Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
> 2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
> tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
> linuxppc-2.4 one ?

It's CVS only.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Sven L. <sve...@wa...>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:28:48PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:59:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > >I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> > > >patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> > > >
> > > >I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> > > >this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> > > >this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> > > >and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?
> > >
> > > It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef,
> > > so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of
> > > the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.
> >
> > Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
> > 2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
> > tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
> > linuxppc-2.4 one ?
> 
> It's CVS only.

Ok.

I thought that Jesper was tracking bitkeeper back in 98 or so, but i may
be wrong, or this was reverted when we moved to sourceforge.

Actually, it is easier that way, as i tend to miss things with bk, as
you well know.

Will the current CVS head just do, or should i look for a 2.4.24 tag ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:28:48PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:59:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > >I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> > > > >patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> > > > >
> > > > >I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> > > > >this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> > > > >this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> > > > >and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?
> > > >
> > > > It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef,
> > > > so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of
> > > > the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.
> > >
> > > Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
> > > 2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
> > > tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
> > > linuxppc-2.4 one ?
> >
> > It's CVS only.
>
> Ok.
>
> I thought that Jesper was tracking bitkeeper back in 98 or so, but i may
> be wrong, or this was reverted when we moved to sourceforge.
>
> Actually, it is easier that way, as i tend to miss things with bk, as
> you well know.
>
> Will the current CVS head just do, or should i look for a 2.4.24 tag ?

I don't think there's a tag, just check out the head and try.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Sven L. <sve...@wa...>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:40:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 01:28:48PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:59:46PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > >I was wondering if it would make sense to also include the needed apus
> > > > > >patches, and build all powerpc kernels from the same patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I have no more working apus machine though, and i can't really test
> > > > > >this, but i would like to hear the opinion of the apus developers on
> > > > > >this. Do you believe this is possible, or are there too many differences
> > > > > >and incompatibility between the apus patches and the normal ones ?
> > > > >
> > > > > It should be possible, all incompatible changes are protected via ifdef,
> > > > > so I don't really see a problem. It might be worth to look at some of
> > > > > the drivers and exclude some of it, so you can keep the differences smaller.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
> > > > 2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
> > > > tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
> > > > linuxppc-2.4 one ?
> > >
> > > It's CVS only.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > I thought that Jesper was tracking bitkeeper back in 98 or so, but i may
> > be wrong, or this was reverted when we moved to sourceforge.
> >
> > Actually, it is easier that way, as i tend to miss things with bk, as
> > you well know.
> >
> > Will the current CVS head just do, or should i look for a 2.4.24 tag ?
> 
> I don't think there's a tag, just check out the head and try.

Well, i cannot really try, as i don't have apus hardware anymore. But i
would like the patches to be integrated in the debian -powerpc kernel
package, which would then also build the -apus kernels. This would make
it easier to maintain, i think.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: status of the 2.4 apus patches ?

[Roman Z. <zi...@li...>]

Hi,

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sven Luther wrote:

> Is there a bk repository of the apus tree, and if so, was a proper
> 2.4.24 tag made ? Also, if it exists, is the apus bk repository still
> tracking the old linuxppc_2_4 one, or did it already move to the
> linuxppc-2.4 one ?

It's only CVS and it still tracks linuxppc_2_4.
The head of CVS is 2.4.24 and will be tagged once 2.4.25 is out, you can
generate a patch with "cvs ... rdiff -r ppc-2_4_24 -D now 2.3".

bye, Roman