[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] fix parallel build failures in xfsprogs-3.0.0

To: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] fix parallel build failures in xfsprogs-3.0.0
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:37:49 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3C7B0B6E-1316-41CC-8846-356FDC780287@xxxxxxx>
Organization: wh0rd.org
References: <200902240010.25434.vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> <200902240953.56992.vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C7B0B6E-1316-41CC-8846-356FDC780287@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.2.0; x86_64; ; )
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 10:14:13 Felix Blyakher wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the xfs.org wiki talks about git trees on sgi.com,
> Yes, they're still there.
> > but some of them are old
> > and/or moved (like the xfs-cmds one) ...
> xfs-cmds was split into separate repos for xfsprogs, xfsdump,
> and dmapi. And that info is on xfs.org.

but acl/attr have not.  distros care about those packages as well.

> Here is the excerpt from the following page:

yes, i was reading the page.  i was also pointing out the broken link to the 
xfs-cmds repo (which is after everything you quoted) and that that repo seems 
to be dead now.  which means there is no up-to-date place for acl/attr on that 

> At times though the repos on kernel.org could be ahead of sgi ones.

well if people are going to try to help in development, the kernel.org trees 
would be good to mention on that page as well with a note as to which tree is 
preferred (sgi.com or kernel.org).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>