[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 2.2.23 source



On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:27:53PM -0500, Ray Knight wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 20:32, Mark Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 07:20:06AM -0700, Mark Zimmerman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:28:55AM -0500, Ray Knight wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:13, Mark Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > > Greetings:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since linux-mac68k@mac.linux-m68k.org seems to be broken, I guess I'll
> > > > > repost this here:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I tried out the 2.2.23 kernel on my SE/30 and it works fine. I wanted
> > > > > to take the next step and build one myself so I updated my CVS but I
> > > > > still had version 2.2.20. I am using the 2_2 tag. I looked at what
> > > > > tags are out there now and didn't see a 2_2_23.
> > > > > 
> > 
> > Sorry to be such a nag, but I tried something else that might shed
> > light on this. I have been looking at include/linux/version.h to
> > determine the verion I've got. Today, I downloaded the whole tree
> > from scratch using tag 2_2_23 but I ended up without this file.
> > Perhaps there is a missing tag in cvs.
> > 
> 
> version.h is created by running the kernel build process.
> 
Aha, that clears it all up. I was just trying to verify what I had
before starting a build but I chose the wrong method. Anyhow, I am now
11 hours into a kernel compile and I'll see what comes out later
today.

Thanks,
-- Mark



Reply to: