On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:51:17PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > Because it simply did not work out - not all architectures are in sync with > Linus' tree
Oh, I know that well enough. > and if I understood "our" port maintainer correctly, there are > some architecture-specific things Linus does not accept for his tree some architectures have code that can't go into a stable branch anymore, yes. ia64 is the only major example I know. > or that > are incompatible between other architectures. Umm, no. Sometimes you get conflicts when applying the plain architecture patches, bat that's not due to incompatible requirements but because they touch the same area. > I doubt that a standard Suse kernel tree produces a working kernel on mips, > mipsel or m68k; can't say for the other architectures, though. Even Marcelo's tree seems to get a working m68k kernel nowdays - although just the less stranger m68k variants. Well, the mips tree is total mess, you'd have to ask the guys playing with it at suse (Andreas Jaeger IIRC). OTOH to the diff to a 2.4.20 XFS tree (i.e. almost like Marcelo's tree) to get it working on my indy was rather small.
