Charles Steinkuehler, 2001-04-20 08:45 -0500
>It'd be interesting to see how much each option affected size, but
>overall a 411K 2.4 kernel is VERY COOL, and should be quite usable for
>floppy firewalls. While I'd like to see a 'one size fits all' kernel,
>perhaps there could be a floppy only, minimal kernel, and a larger
>kernel with all the 'goodies' like RAID, loopback, etc (compiled as
>modules, where possible) for folks running from CD, HDD, Flash, or what
>have you.
Charles,
This sounds good.
Getting back to your CVS comments from yesterday. I agree, we need to start
committing files to CVS. There are approximately six people working
independently on the EigerStein update. Putting these individual pieces
into CVS will allow all of us to build off of each others efforts.
First, Charles this looks like a significant update. Are we still going to
call it EigerStein, or have you decided on a new name?
Second, are we creating a release that branches from 2.9.8, or ESb2?
Third, does anyone have suggestions for the tree structure? Should we use
Dave C.'s or Matthew Grant's devel snapshot as a template? I did the
following search on Google looking for ideas.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cvs+repository+structure
Fourth, we need to decide if packages should have their own tree. Are we
going to try to make them work on as many releases as possible? If so, I
think a separate tree for packages is in order. I also, like David's diff
idea for them.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? \
func=detail&aid=412704&group_id=13751&atid=313751
David,
How close are you to committing the Oxygen devel tree to CVS?
Jack,
How close is Ladybug to release? Is it ready for CVS?
Scott,
I think Echowall should be added to CVS. Do you agree?
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
