Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:18:09AM -0400 wrote: > > Should I do a source upload of 2.2.24 boot-floppies for the ARM stuff? Sounds reasonable, once busybox 0.52 arrives we'll have largely functioning boot-floppies, I believe. > > Anything else that needs to go into that, like the 2.2.19 kernel for > i386? I don't see why not. > > -- > .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onshored.com/> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? David Whedon
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? David Whedon
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Martin Schulze
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Marcin Owsiany
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Philip Blundell
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo
- potato b-f 2.2.24 testing/building Adam Di Carlo
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Wichert Akkerman
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo