Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
Hello
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 21:09, Redeeman wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 20:30 +0300, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
Hello
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 18:22, Redeeman wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 16:55 +0300, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
Hello
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 22:56, Redeeman wrote:
hello.. reiser4 is now in mm, but i realize that nearly all of the stuff
that was mm specific when the move to mm was made, are probably merged
into upstream by now, i wonder, can anyone tell me exactly what from mm
it depends on?
thanks
reiser4 got included into mm not because it needed something of it, but
rather because it is supposed that being in mm for certain amount of
time reiser4 will get a lot of testing and will prove that it is worth
to get included into stock kernel.
im aware, however, the reiser4 patches in mm are against mm, which means
it depends on something from it, and i'd like to find out what :D so
that i can take it out and apply to vanilla along with reiser4
did you see ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/2.6.9?
It contains all things which reiser4 depends on.
nice
If you would like to add reiser4 to vanilla kernel yourself you would
have to add reiser4 patches of mm kernel to vanilla one:
people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.X/2.6.X-mmY/broken-out/reiser4-*
and add the patch i am attaching to this email.
yeah i tried that, however they dont patch against latest vanilla, it
would seem the vfs has changed abit.. i just wondered if anyone knew
exactly which of the mm patches was needed to make up for this, but, now
you gave me that url :) never mind..
Ah, yes, you are right, there is a patch which rejects.
But, I guess that if we keep ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4-for-2.6/
uptodate - that would be ok and we would not have to release separate
patches for vanilla kernel
How is this a one step install process for users? Anything that
diverges from a one step install process is bad with the amount badness
proportional to the number of steps. Minimize the badness.
Give the task to vitaly though.
thanks
