On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:13:03PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > > Ok. I am not moving i386 to straigh 2.2.19 right now, btw, since I'm > > > pretty sure that kernel has issues. > > > > What kind of issues are you referring to? > > I checked and they are ok. > > Should I prepare new Potato boot-floppies with 2.2.19 for i386? > > That's the only change , aside from some documentation updates. Please don't do this until a new BusyBox makes it into the archive. The current BusyBox tar mangles directory permissions so that the installed system is unusable (a world writable /lib, for instance). Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 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
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Matt Kraai
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Erik Andersen
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Wichert Akkerman
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Wichert Akkerman
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM? Adam Di Carlo