Re: [arch-general] signoff linux-3.1.5-1

2011-12-16 Thread Karol Blazewicz
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:47 AM, David C. Rankin wrote: > On 12/16/2011 01:17 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote: >> Maybe it's because >> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-November/021972.html >> ? > > That was it.. Missed the dev post :( Don't feel bad, you're not the only one

Re: [arch-general] signoff linux-3.1.5-1

2011-12-16 Thread David C. Rankin
On 12/16/2011 01:17 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > Maybe it's because > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-November/021972.html > ? That was it.. Missed the dev post :( -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

Re: [arch-general] signoff linux-3.1.5-1

2011-12-16 Thread Lukas Fleischer
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:17:24PM +0100, Karol Blazewicz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:14 PM, David C. Rankin > wrote: > > All, > > > >  I haven't seen tpowa's normal kernel signoff > > Maybe it's because > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-November/021972.html > ?

Re: [arch-general] signoff linux-3.1.5-1

2011-12-16 Thread Karol Blazewicz
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:14 PM, David C. Rankin wrote: > All, > >  I haven't seen tpowa's normal kernel signoff Maybe it's because http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-November/021972.html ?

Re: [arch-general] signoff linux-3.1.5-1

2011-12-16 Thread David C. Rankin
All, I haven't seen tpowa's normal kernel signoff, so just dropping a note it's good on multiple x86_64 and i686 boxes here. Only issue this time, which I haven't seen in the past 4-5 kernels, was the x86_64 MSI box that had a problem with the boot image being placed in a location that leaves