On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:07:38AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Fernando de Oliveira > <fam...@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > > Digging into this since yesterday evening, discovered first that 3.4 is > > dev and stable version is 3.3.7, second, the error is well known: > > > > http://us.generation-nt.com/answer/linux-next-build-failure-after-merge-final-tree-help-207537361.html > > 3.4 is *not* dev. See http://kernel.org/ - 3.4 is 'mainline', 3.3.7 is > stable. But, as > soon as Greg releases 3.4.1, that will be deemed 'stable' as well. > > As far as the patch goes, I don't mind adding it, though it would be nice if > you > or someone else can figure out why it's needed in certain configurations and > not in others. If you see a package upgrade committed by me in svn, you can > be > assured that it built for me at least. I obviously can't test every > combination > of hardware and/or kernel configs (my kernel is as minimal as possibly for my > needs). > > Regards, > > Matt. > When I first saw the thread on lkml last week, I *thought* it was to do with relocatable kernels (presumably CONFIG_RELOCATABLE). Fernando, do you have that config option enabled ?
ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
