Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?

To: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
From: David Whedon <dwhedon@gordian.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:47:45 -0700
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010511084745.A10634@ogun.gordian.com>
Mail-followup-to: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>, debian-boot@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] oaoft0aqrw.fsf@arroz.fake>; from adam@onshore.com on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:45:07AM -0400
References: <[🔎] oa1ypwcvla.fsf@arroz.fake> <[🔎] 20010510230507.B8583@ogun.gordian.com> <[🔎] oaoft0aqrw.fsf@arroz.fake>

> Um, David, you realize 2.2.24 would be Potato, right?  
umm, nope, please ignore my cluelessness, thanks.

> 
> I will also try to release 2.3.2 for Woody as soon as I can compile
> it.
that's the one waiting for busybox, as I'm sure you know.

David

Reply to:

References:
- should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
  - From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
  - From: David Whedon <dwhedon@gordian.com>
- Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
  - From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>

Prev by Date: Woody install report
Next by Date: cvs commit to boot-floppies/utilities/libfdisk by dwhedon
Previous by thread: Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
Next by thread: Re: should burn new potato b-f for ARM?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread