On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2001 12:56, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
> | Nicolas,
> |
> | > Therefore, there's stg that I find a little puzzling : why is it that
> | > every time a new release (ie MDK 8) is showing, all the RPM packages
> | > suddendly requires dependencies that weren't needed with the latest
> | > "official" release (MDK 7.2 in this case) ?
> |
> | Mdk 8.0 has glibc 2.2, while 7.2 has an older one. They aren't
> | compatible, that's why rpm is complaining. If you want to install the
> | mdk 8.0 openssl on you're 7.2 machine, then you'll also need to upgrade
> | glibc, which will then force you to upgrade most other applications as
> | well --> something you could consider to be a complete OS upgrade.
>
> LM 7.2 was binary compatible with LM 7.0 and 7.1
> I effectively was using Cooker's binary RPMs for upgrading my LM 7.0 until
> October 2000 - when LM 7.2 was released (and I obtained set of LM 7.2 CDs,
> thanks to one kind man on this list)
Well perhaps that's just me, but a few weeks ago, I was still using MDK
7.1, and each time (or nearly) I tried to install a package from 7.2 on
the 7.1 (for example, netscape, mozilla and xmms if I recall correctly), I
got a message telling me some dependencies were missing. So I finnaly
installed 7.2, which solve all the problems. It's just that I have the
feeling that although all mdk 7.2 (or most of them) should be compatible
with 7.1, it's not the case. Am I wrong ?
>
> |
> | > Let's take an example : I wanted to try to install the latest openssl
> | > 0.9.6 from cooker instead of the 0.9.5 currently in mdk 7.2.
>
> Pls be careful when upgrading from OpenSSL 0.9.5 to 0.9.6
> They are *binary incompatible*. It is problem with OpenSSL library, not
> Cooker.
> You will need to recompile apps depending on OpenSSL in that case.
> (for example, kdelibs and kdebase ...)
Yes, of course ; that was just an example I wanted to give. I totaly agree
on the fact that in that case dealing with open SSL 0.9.6 is not the same
as with 0.9.5
>
> The best I can recommend to you here is to grab latest SRPM from Cooker, and
> --rebuild it on LM 7.2 box.
> I did it already for KDE 2.1 and Gnome 1.4.
> So,, I continue to run LM 7.2 and most *important* for me apps on current
> Cooker level.
Yes, of course. In fact, most of the time it directly grab the .tar.gz
from the author site and compile it myself ; that's no problem. I was just
curious at seeing if installing more recent RPM from mandrake would work
(without having to use the src.rpm)
>
> You can find there XF 4.0.2-11, 4.0.3, KDE 2.1, xmms and some other nice apps.
OK, I thought this dir was also dedicated to the cooker version. OF course
if I can find there RPM compatible with the latest sold mdk (7.2), that
solves all my problems.
>
> | Nobody forced you todo anything. Mandrake is working on their next
> | product, which has the latest stuff in it. You're experiencing some
> | problems because the latest stuff is built on glibc 2.2 (I guess this is
> | where innovation hurts). But, since the sources are also available, feel
> | free to recompile them (src.rp,) for your system, you have the freedom
> | to do so.
>
> I still, personally, wonder what is so grreat in glibc 2.2
> And IMHO if they break compatibility they should change major version number.
> Like, name it glibc 3.0
> KDE 3.0 (which is supposed to be binary incompatible with KDE 2.0) goes
> exactly in this way.
> Then, everybody knows that dot-zero version can be buggy (and binary
> incompatible, if major version changed)
> I belive it will fix a lot of issues for many people.
>
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not complaining on the need to push innovation
and include the latest glibc for example ; it's just that after reading
the diff between 2.2 and 2.1, I didn't have the feelings the interface was
completly changed (as from libc5 to libc6). Sure, many functions have been
added or debugged, but I wasn't aware it had an impact on the
compatibility between 2.2 and 2.1.
I'm not whining on the fact that a version *must* be compatible with the
previous one. I just thought glibc 2.2 was not such a big step to explain
those dependencies messages. But If it is the case, then it's OK for me if
MDK 8.0 is not compatible with 7.2, I just didn't fully understand the
glibc implications :-(
bye
----------------
Nicolas Pomarede e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It said uses Windows 95 or better, so I loaded Linux!"
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates ?"
