I believe I've discovered an odd discrepancy between what is in the official
Linux BitKeeper repository, and what is on ftp.kernel.org. According to
BitKeeper, the last time linux/arch/s390/config.in and
linux/arch/s390x/config.in were changed is 17 months ago. What is in
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.28.tar.bz2 was last modified
on November 17, 2004. The difference between the two versions is this:
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
bool 'BSD Process Accounting' CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT
bool 'Sysctl support' CONFIG_SYSCTL
define_bool CONFIG_KCORE_ELF y
-tristate 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
+bool 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
tristate 'Kernel support for MISC binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC
bool 'Show crashed user process info' CONFIG_PROCESS_DEBUG
bool 'Pseudo page fault support' CONFIG_PFAULT
Admittedly, pretty small, but still disturbing to me, at least. What's
interesting is that this change seems to have been made to a _lot_ of
architectures (14 in all) in patch-2.4.28-pre2.bz2, which is now in
ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/testing/old/ That file is dated August
26, 2004. This same change was included in -pre3, all the way through -rc4,
and then the final 2.4.28. The entry in the patch-2.4.28.log looks like
this:
Adrian Bunk:
o 2.4.28-pre1: add two SATA Configure.help entries
o disallow modular BINFMT_ELF
Does anyone have any idea why this didn't make it into BitKeeper? Should it
be in BitKeeper or not? This looks like some sort of process failure (or
failure to follow the process), which is what concerns me the most.
Mark Post
Post, Mark K wrote:
> I believe I've discovered an odd discrepancy between what is in the official
> Linux BitKeeper repository, and what is on ftp.kernel.org. According to
> BitKeeper, the last time linux/arch/s390/config.in and
> linux/arch/s390x/config.in were changed is 17 months ago. What is in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.28.tar.bz2 was last modified
> on November 17, 2004. The difference between the two versions is this:
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> bool 'BSD Process Accounting' CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT
> bool 'Sysctl support' CONFIG_SYSCTL
> define_bool CONFIG_KCORE_ELF y
> -tristate 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +bool 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> tristate 'Kernel support for MISC binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC
> bool 'Show crashed user process info' CONFIG_PROCESS_DEBUG
> bool 'Pseudo page fault support' CONFIG_PFAULT
>
>
> Admittedly, pretty small, but still disturbing to me, at least. What's
> interesting is that this change seems to have been made to a _lot_ of
> architectures (14 in all) in patch-2.4.28-pre2.bz2, which is now in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/testing/old/ That file is dated August
> 26, 2004. This same change was included in -pre3, all the way through -rc4,
> and then the final 2.4.28. The entry in the patch-2.4.28.log looks like
> this:
> Adrian Bunk:
> o 2.4.28-pre1: add two SATA Configure.help entries
> o disallow modular BINFMT_ELF
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this didn't make it into BitKeeper? Should it
> be in BitKeeper or not? This looks like some sort of process failure (or
> failure to follow the process), which is what concerns me the most.
Browsing bkbits.net shows that it is there:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/diffs/arch/s390/[email protected]?nav=index.html|src/|src/arch|src/arch/s390|hist/arch/s390/config.in
so a 'bk pull' doesn't show it?? (I can't verify yes/no on that.)
--
~Randy
Well, you're right. Something (else) strange is going on, though. I was
having problems with Comcast's DNS servers not working earlier tonight, so I
had to substitute the IP address of linux.bkbits.net (192.132.92.3) for the
name in my web browser. When I use that now, it does _not_ show the change
having been made. If I use the DNS name, (Comcast's back to working again),
the change is absolutely there. Very odd. Ah, I just happened to think
that perhaps some virtual host stuff is being done in Apache, and you don't
get to the same place if you specify an IP address versus a host name.
I guess that's an interesting lesson to learn, but certainly nothing that
LMKL has to be concerned about. Thanks for the response, I'll go away now.
:)
Mark Post
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:05 PM
To: Post, Mark K
Cc: 'Linux390'; 'BOEBLINGEN LINUX390'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net
Post, Mark K wrote:
> I believe I've discovered an odd discrepancy between what is in the
official
> Linux BitKeeper repository, and what is on ftp.kernel.org. According to
> BitKeeper, the last time linux/arch/s390/config.in and
> linux/arch/s390x/config.in were changed is 17 months ago. What is in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.28.tar.bz2 was last
modified
> on November 17, 2004. The difference between the two versions is this:
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> bool 'BSD Process Accounting' CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT
> bool 'Sysctl support' CONFIG_SYSCTL
> define_bool CONFIG_KCORE_ELF y
> -tristate 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> +bool 'Kernel support for ELF binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF
> tristate 'Kernel support for MISC binaries' CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC
> bool 'Show crashed user process info' CONFIG_PROCESS_DEBUG
> bool 'Pseudo page fault support' CONFIG_PFAULT
>
>
> Admittedly, pretty small, but still disturbing to me, at least. What's
> interesting is that this change seems to have been made to a _lot_ of
> architectures (14 in all) in patch-2.4.28-pre2.bz2, which is now in
> ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/testing/old/ That file is dated
August
> 26, 2004. This same change was included in -pre3, all the way through
-rc4,
> and then the final 2.4.28. The entry in the patch-2.4.28.log looks like
> this:
> Adrian Bunk:
> o 2.4.28-pre1: add two SATA Configure.help entries
> o disallow modular BINFMT_ELF
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this didn't make it into BitKeeper? Should
it
> be in BitKeeper or not? This looks like some sort of process failure (or
> failure to follow the process), which is what concerns me the most.
Browsing bkbits.net shows that it is there:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/diffs/arch/s390/[email protected]?nav=in
dex.html|src/|src/arch|src/arch/s390|hist/arch/s390/config.in
so a 'bk pull' doesn't show it?? (I can't verify yes/no on that.)
--
~Randy