'gt;> What would be the point of doing that? I would think we want the >> opposite, in that we want to reuse as much of arch/powerpc during >> arch/ppc compiles as possible. Sort of shows how much is "left" to >> port. > > The point would be to keep the two trees separate, so that one doesn't > need to worry about breaking arch/ppc when making a change to > arch/powerpc.
We should make arch/ppc as broken as possible so no one can complain when it is finally removed. I'll remove the config from my auto-builder right now :-) Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
