On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:20:25 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote
(Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
Let this thread die. Now.
Unfortunately we have to detect a serious case of memory loss.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:30:09 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
(Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
I said that, say that, and it's still true, yes ;) It's also true with the
majority of other distributions not cited so far: debian (which has the
advantage of a reasonable package management), slackware, stampede and
many others.
What makes
There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any
distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule.
So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they
want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to
obtain and install 'clean'
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> I agree about the "unreleased and unofficial" part, but it's not quite
> that broken and experimental. Everything that is shipped with Red
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taken on it's own, redhat never did anything which is not "politically
>correct" or "was just a bug that has been fixed". However, that redhat
>claims to maintain linux, gcc and other major projects (which is
>absolutely
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
>> However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
>> is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
>> supporting distributions that - without technical
> 'Standard Linux'
> Should the core kernel define a standard Linux??
To an extent.
I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x
o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus
o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 10:57:57PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
>
> They did.
O.k. let's disagree ;)
> > This really is an affront on your side, twisting reality quite a bit - the
> I noticed you
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the
> mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently?
> Do
> > Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people
> > like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc
>
> they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
They did.
> > to the temporary ABI in 2.95 first -
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:39:00PM -0700, Michael Peddemors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match...
And a pile of misunderstandings as well.
> ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
> standard kernel?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
> is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
> supporting distributions that - without technical reasons - make their
> products incompatible to what
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
> > control it.
>
> You are excused this one and only time since I am fortunate enough to
> never have met you but listen carefully now:
I really didn't want to make a comment on this stupid thread but now
you are getting personal:
> > > OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> > > changes,
> >
> > We're doing no such thing.
>
> If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> > changes,
>
> We're doing no such thing.
If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
>
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
> work on the basis they have any influence over me.
The logic is not quite right, but tt's definitely another story indeed.
> > the largest
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
> changes,
We're doing no such thing.
If we did this sort of thing, he would have been pressed into releasing
glibc 2.2 in time.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] did have some influence on choosing
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Alec Smith wrote:
> Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even get that
> disaster known as RH7.0 to even install. It died with some error about not
> being able to detect free disk space after formatting the paritions...
Please report this at
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet?
Sure...
> What a mess.
Not quite...
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Either use the kernel compiler (kgcc) or patch the file to be compatible
with
> After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages
I work for Red Hat. I can pick up the phone any day of the week and work
for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
work on the basis they have any influence over me.
> same) and free
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> compiler, with all the consequences I said.
I agree about the "unreleased and unofficial" part, but it's not quite
that broken and experimental. Everything that is shipped with
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
> actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
> wont compile pgcc that.
Well, I grant that supporting pgcc is
> pgcc never was incompatible at binary level to gcc/egcs.
pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
wont compile pgcc that.
> That's simply a fact that you can't discuss away by
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> >
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
Oh yes, of course while providing full
> > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
>
> Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> compiler, with all the consequences I said.
And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
*PLONK*
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
> > version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
>
> They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> projects because they receive bogus bug reports because redhat shipped
> a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
> version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler. Its not the
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> > Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> > influenced not to play games like this
>
> Remind me next
> to spot it, and ditto with any others who do the same. If everyone could have
> agreed a name for the kernel compiler that would be even better.
Sorry, I was probably unclear as I wasn't about the name of the compiler,
nor the neccissity of using an outdated gcc version for kernel compiles.
>
> administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
> refuses to compile 2.2.17 or 2.4.0-test9-pre7. "Aha!" thinks Daniel, "I'll
Actually it compiles both but I suspect you didnt RTFM ;). Use kgcc so you
get egcs building the kernel.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this
> If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
> influenced not to play games like this
Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA
shipped unusable NFS patches
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
>
> Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
> (redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is
Michael Meding wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
> the kernel source a little bit too well.
I dunno about all this... The stock gcc 2.96 works great for everything
on my box... It compiles and runs 2.4.0-test7 really well. I'm
Marc Lehmann wrote:
>
> > regard. Hopefully ISV's will be able to figure out for themselves that
> > it would be a Bad Idea to develop applications under RH 7.0, since it
>
> Sounds like a parallel world :(
>
> > If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
> >
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:37:56AM -0400, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not just gcc which RedHat did this to. They do this regularly with
They did this in the past with glibc and perl, for example, leading to
really "interesting" portability problems. I always thought
Sound like "Embrace and Extend" with a different flavor, similar effect.
jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marc Lehmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 30,
Sound like "Embrace and Extend" with a different flavor, similar effect.
jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Marc Lehmann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 1:37 AM
Subject:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:37:56AM -0400, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just gcc which RedHat did this to. They do this regularly with
They did this in the past with glibc and perl, for example, leading to
really "interesting" portability problems. I always thought these
Marc Lehmann wrote:
regard. Hopefully ISV's will be able to figure out for themselves that
it would be a Bad Idea to develop applications under RH 7.0, since it
Sounds like a parallel world :(
If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
Customer
Michael Meding wrote:
Hi there,
you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
the kernel source a little bit too well.
I dunno about all this... The stock gcc 2.96 works great for everything
on my box... It compiles and runs 2.4.0-test7 really well. I'm not
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
influenced not to play games like this
Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA
shipped unusable NFS patches and
to spot it, and ditto with any others who do the same. If everyone could have
agreed a name for the kernel compiler that would be even better.
Sorry, I was probably unclear as I wasn't about the name of the compiler,
nor the neccissity of using an outdated gcc version for kernel compiles.
As
administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
refuses to compile 2.2.17 or 2.4.0-test9-pre7. "Aha!" thinks Daniel, "I'll
Actually it compiles both but I suspect you didnt RTFM ;). Use kgcc so you
get egcs building the kernel.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:07:49PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't like this, I suggest you send mail complaining to RedHat.
Customer complaints are going to be the only way that RH is going to be
influenced not to play games like this
Remind me next time I get
projects because they receive bogus bug reports because redhat shipped
a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler. Its not the
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official
version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
Which
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
compiler, with all the consequences I said.
And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
*PLONK*
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
compiler, with all the consequences I said.
And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
Oh yes, of course while providing full binary
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
compiler, with all the consequences I said.
And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
pgcc never was incompatible at binary level to gcc/egcs.
pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
wont compile pgcc that.
That's simply a fact that you can't discuss away by attacking
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pgcc just didnt work. I got to the point where the kernel list stuff I had
actually had pgcc filtered. Because it was kernel crash pgcc this, kernel
wont compile pgcc that.
Well, I grant that supporting pgcc is not
After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages
I work for Red Hat. I can pick up the phone any day of the week and work
for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
work on the basis they have any influence over me.
same) and free
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet?
Sure...
What a mess.
Not quite...
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
Either use the kernel compiler (kgcc) or patch the file to be compatible
with
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Alec Smith wrote:
Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even get that
disaster known as RH7.0 to even install. It died with some error about not
being able to detect free disk space after formatting the paritions...
Please report this at
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for Caldera, Transmeta, SuSE and others I expect. So I dont think you can
work on the basis they have any influence over me.
The logic is not quite right, but tt's definitely another story indeed.
the largest one,
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
changes,
We're doing no such thing.
If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
If we did
I really didn't want to make a comment on this stupid thread but now
you are getting personal:
OTOH, [EMAIL PROTECTED] might get pressed into not doing incompatible
changes,
We're doing no such thing.
If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you say so However, I am not sure that you (we?) can actually
control it.
You are excused this one and only time since I am fortunate enough to
never have met you but listen carefully now:
And you
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
supporting distributions that - without technical reasons - make their
products incompatible to what one
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:39:00PM -0700, Michael Peddemors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match...
And a pile of misunderstandings as well.
ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
standard kernel?
Various people I associate with being senior in both glibc and gcc (people
like Ulrich Drepper and Jeff Law) were involved in the compiler and glibc
they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
They did.
to the temporary ABI in 2.95 first - whomever that
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the
standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the
mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently?
Do we
'Standard Linux'
Should the core kernel define a standard Linux??
To an extent.
I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x
o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus
o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very
fussy
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:
However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs*
is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about
supporting distributions that - without technical reasons -
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taken on it's own, redhat never did anything which is not "politically
correct" or "was just a bug that has been fixed". However, that redhat
claims to maintain linux, gcc and other major projects (which is
absolutely untrue) is
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
compiler, with all the consequences I said.
I agree about the "unreleased and unofficial" part, but it's not quite
that broken and experimental. Everything that is shipped with Red Hat
There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any
distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule.
So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they
want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to
obtain and install 'clean'
Date:Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:10:59 +0200
From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
binary compatible to 2.95 nor to 3.0, cutting binary
OK, but I can't leave without pointing out that having gcc 2.96 breaks
compiling gcc 2.95.2. I've got Debian for my main machine and RH7 the other
machine on my desk as well as a couple of other test boxen (have to be
administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
Alec Smith wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Alec Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David M. Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
>
> Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even g
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
Please, do *not* start a flamewar about "my distribution is
larger/better/more stable/kinder to animals/whatever than yours" here!
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
-
To unsubscribe from
> you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
> the kernel source a little bit too well.
>
> Did you edit the makefiles to use kgcc instead of gcc ?
2.2.18pre12 (coming to a kernel archive near you in 2 or 3 minutes) now
knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and
Hi there,
you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
the kernel source a little bit too well.
Did you edit the makefiles to use kgcc instead of gcc ?
Greetings
Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
>
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
>
> 2) Trying to compile the kernel source for 2.2.16 that comes with the
> redhat disk (which is
Alec Smith wrote:
> I'll stick to Debian -- It might be a bit outdated at times, but Debian
> "just works." Maybe RedHat could take some hints from the Debian guys.
Or Slackware, which is clean, simple, eminently hackable, and most importantly
of all, does not make patches to programs that
Maybe this thread should be on the redhat list not the kernel list.
Alec Smith wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Alec Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David M. Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
>
>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alec Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David M. Rector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even get that
disaster known as RH7.0 to even install. It died wit
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
>
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Use the right compiler
> 2) Trying to compile the kernel source for 2.2.16 that comes with the
> redhat disk (which is very different than the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
>
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Unable to reproduce.
> 2) Trying to compile the
"David M. Rector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
I'm running 6.9.5 at home (7.0 beta)
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Use kgcc, not gcc. Works fine, I'm running 2.2.18pre11 at home,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
>
> Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
No it's nor ;-)
> 1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
> compress.S) with a fatal error.
Install the kgcc from the first CD. That one works much better and edit
the top
I got a copy from Bob Young at the Red Hat booth at N+I, and the GNOME
stuff is tons better than 6.X RedHat, however, the upgrade feature
trashed our Red Hat server, and there seems to be some problems with
sendmail as well. I will have Larry send to Alan.
The GNOME desktop with 7.0 is sexy
I got a copy from Bob Young at the Red Hat booth at N+I, and the GNOME
stuff is tons better than 6.X RedHat, however, the upgrade feature
trashed our Red Hat server, and there seems to be some problems with
sendmail as well. I will have Larry send to Alan.
The GNOME desktop with 7.0 is sexy
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
No it's nor ;-)
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
Install the kgcc from the first CD. That one works much better and edit
the top
"David M. Rector" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
I'm running 6.9.5 at home (7.0 beta)
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
Use kgcc, not gcc. Works fine, I'm running 2.2.18pre11 at home, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
Unable to reproduce.
2) Trying to compile the kernel
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
Use the right compiler
2) Trying to compile the kernel source for 2.2.16 that comes with the
redhat disk (which is very different than the stock
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alec Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David M. Rector [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Congratulations, you got further than I did. I couldn't even get that
disaster known as RH7.0 to even install. It died with some error
Maybe this thread should be on the redhat list not the kernel list.
Alec Smith wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alec Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David M. Rector [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Congratulations, you got further than I did
Alec Smith wrote:
I'll stick to Debian -- It might be a bit outdated at times, but Debian
"just works." Maybe RedHat could take some hints from the Debian guys.
Or Slackware, which is clean, simple, eminently hackable, and most importantly
of all, does not make patches to programs that
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, David M. Rector wrote:
Has anyone tried Redhat 7.0 yet? What a mess.
1) It would not compile stock kernels out of the box. (ends at
compress.S) with a fatal error.
2) Trying to compile the kernel source for 2.2.16 that comes with the
redhat disk (which is very
Hi there,
you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
the kernel source a little bit too well.
Did you edit the makefiles to use kgcc instead of gcc ?
Greetings
Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
you have of course used kgcc for the compile job ? 2.96 maybe is chewing
the kernel source a little bit too well.
Did you edit the makefiles to use kgcc instead of gcc ?
2.2.18pre12 (coming to a kernel archive near you in 2 or 3 minutes) now
knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian)
Please, do *not* start a flamewar about "my distribution is
larger/better/more stable/kinder to animals/whatever than yours" here!
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
binary
OK, but I can't leave without pointing out that having gcc 2.96 breaks
compiling gcc 2.95.2. I've got Debian for my main machine and RH7 the other
machine on my desk as well as a couple of other test boxen (have to be
administered by clueless WinNT-type operators, so Debian was out), and RH7
Date:Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:10:59 +0200
From: Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
(redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
binary compatible to 2.95 nor to 3.0, cutting binary
101 - 200 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
