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

Re: Airport support in 2.4.x kernel

Alan DuBoff wrote:

> > No way. The point of rsync is that it makes all local copies of the files
> > in the repository identical to the originals (using a very interesting
> > protocol BTW - look for the RFC which describes it if you are interested).
> Yes, that is the point. However, if you use --delete or not, would be
> determine by the rsync command given on the command line. I just saw that as
> a way for a tree to get out of sync, but not delete the local files that
> have been removed from the tree. IOW, I think you could still do an rsync,
> and not pass it --delete and it wouldn't remove the airport support that is
> in your 2.4.2, but I could be wrong.

No you're right, and I don't use --delete because I like to keep files around
that I don't want to be deleted every time I rsync (any elegant way around the
problem of leftover files BTW?).

But you said you also had the airport.c file, right? And whether or not it's
available in the configuration only depends on Config.in, which can't differ
in two trees rsynced at the same time.

> I just got a message from work, an extra memory module came in for me, so
> I'll drive over and get it tonight, I've been limping along on 128mb, and
> while not bad with Linux, I would really prefer 256mb, it makes a big
> difference. If I can get the airport working, and have the memory, I'm
> getting close to the promised land...;-)

You lucky (censored :).

/me continues being lucky with only 128 megs

Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)    \   Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast   \        XFree86 and DRI project member

Reply to: