Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Posted by
Fred Proctor
on 1999-11-15 08:54:31 UTC
Ian Wright wrote:
2.0. I don't know if there is any difference between the two. I haven't
downloaded the 2.0 patch and tried it.
Also:
examples.
The larger file is the pristine Linux kernel source tree, already
patched for you. This saves you the trouble of going to www.kernel.org
to get the pristine sources and then patching it yourself. If you
download this, *don't* patch it again. Just skip the patch step and
proceed with making the RT Linux modules, examples, etc.
--Fred
> I've just been looking to download the RT-linux patch and I can't locate theYes. The beta16 patch was indicated as being the candidate for RT Linux
> Beta16 version on the FSM Labs site. It looks like they are happy with it
> and have renamed it RTlinux-2.0
2.0. I don't know if there is any difference between the two. I haven't
downloaded the 2.0 patch and tried it.
Also:
> but there appears to be 2 versions which hasThe smaller file is RT Linux: the patch, the module source code, and the
> confused me a little. There is a straight RTlinux-2.0.tgz at around 1/2MB
> and an RTlinux-2.0-prepatched.tgz at around 15MB so I'm not sure which would
> be best.
examples.
The larger file is the pristine Linux kernel source tree, already
patched for you. This saves you the trouble of going to www.kernel.org
to get the pristine sources and then patching it yourself. If you
download this, *don't* patch it again. Just skip the patch step and
proceed with making the RT Linux modules, examples, etc.
--Fred
Discussion Thread
Ian Wright
1999-11-09 10:40:53 UTC
EMC and new Redhat.
Brian L.
1999-11-09 12:44:26 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Ian Wright
1999-11-09 14:32:56 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Fred Proctor
1999-11-10 07:47:06 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Brian L.
1999-11-10 21:54:39 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Ian Wright
1999-11-11 13:33:30 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Ian Wright
1999-11-13 02:23:54 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.
Fred Proctor
1999-11-15 08:54:31 UTC
Re: EMC and new Redhat.