On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: ... >> AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the >> kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release. > >ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to >a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building >2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x?
IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating the Berkeley database libraries. >> FWIW, Red Hat Linux 9 will have 2.3.1 > >yea, i've heard the same, but i don't assume that Redhat is including what >is deemed stable by the rest of the world ;) Ain't that the truth. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer (1891) _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
