Well... I'm still not sure what the differences are in the 2 statements. :)
But it makes no difference. I see the Perl versions are indeed different. My mistake. This should explain my problem. thanks, B On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Barry Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/#compatibility > > > > So, I'm thinking this is not the full story because I also found this, > > > > http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rhel/rhel5_whatsnew.pdf > > > > I think there was a parsing part on your part when reading that (no > biggie.. it happens to everyone all the time). There is a HUGE > difference between: > > "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 includes compatibility libraries that > enable applications built on the versions 3 and 4 to run without > recompilation." > > and > > "EL5 claims to be fully compatible with binaries that were built on EL4 and > 3." > > Fully compatible means that every library and binary would have a > '-compat' from previous versions. What EL-5 has is a subset of > commonly used compatibility libraries. > > To answer your second question, Red Hat enterprise does not ship the > same version of perl in 3,4,5: > > RHEL-3: perl-5.8.0-98.EL3 > RHEL-4: perl-5.8.5-36.el4_6.3 > RHEL-5: perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3 > > That would explain part fo the differences between library sizes and > versions. > > > > and it also talks about compatibility ( under the GCC 4.1 Compiler > section > > ). > > > > "...enable applications that were previously certified on the versions 3 > and > > 4..." > > > > Maybe the keyword here is "certified" > > > > thanks, > > > > Barry > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Jos Vos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:53:34AM -0400, Barry Andrews wrote: > >> > >> > EL5 claims to be fully compatible with binaries that were built on EL4 > >> > and > >> > 3. > >> > >> Where is that claimed? I think this technically can't be true (at least > >> not in the generic way you put it here), as libraries are upgraded etc. > >> > >> For applications only using glibc etc., for which there also exist > >> compatibility libraries and such, it can be true. > >> > >> -- > >> -- Jos Vos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 > >> -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rhelv5-list mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rhelv5-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > > > > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux > How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed > in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list >
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
