On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 22:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Even more to the point - when 2.6.13 comes out, there will be a patch against
> 2.6.12, not 2.6.12.N, which means you get to download the 2.6.12.N tarball,
> the 2.6.12.N patch, patch -R that, and *then* apply the 2.6.13 patch.
The
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 22:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even more to the point - when 2.6.13 comes out, there will be a patch against
2.6.12, not 2.6.12.N, which means you get to download the 2.6.12.N tarball,
the 2.6.12.N patch, patch -R that, and *then* apply the 2.6.13 patch.
The sad
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 21:50, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines
to write:
>> > Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > >Greetings;
>> > >
>> > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:50:50 EDT, Steven Rostedt said:
> Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's no
> link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of the
> patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and not
> 2.6.12.3, it would be nice
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >Greetings;
> > >
> > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
> > >ache because I didn't check the
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Greetings;
> >
> >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
> >ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
> >set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:50:50 EDT, Steven Rostedt said:
Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's no
link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of the
patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and not
2.6.12.3, it would be nice to
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 21:50, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines
to write:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a
tummy
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:38, Brian Gerst wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Greetings;
>>
>> I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a
>> tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION,
>> which was set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will
>> need a
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh
build. :(
So whats the proper patching sequence to
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh
build. :(
So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
--
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh
build. :(
So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
--
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was
set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh
build. :(
So whats the proper patching sequence to
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:38, Brian Gerst wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings;
I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a
tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION,
which was set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will
need a refresh build.
16 matches
Mail list logo