Discrepancy between ftp.kernel.org and linux.bkbits.net

[Post, Mark K]

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/