Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Hawkins) wrote on 03.10.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior > quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed > packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own > RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix the irritating > stupid bugs in the default Redhat ones. Of course, some enlightened > Redhat employee will no doubt tell me I should register bug reports > about their packages through official channels blah blah blah which is > no use when you do that and the bug reports are ignored for over six > months while Redhat are off promoting themselves at one conference or > another, arse-kissing for more shareholders while at the other end > screwing over the people that put them into the position they could IPO > in in the first place. There's noone responsible for a package, unlike > Debian (the other extreme) where each package has a maintainer who is > responsible for making sure that package is reliable, security-conscious > and integrates well into the rest of the system. With RH you just > submit bug reports to some tracking system and three revisions down the > track somebody will get back from self-promotion at whatever conference > and go "damn, there's a lot of bug reports, I might look at one or two > then delete the rest" and maybe your bug is one of the lucky two, so you > and the millions of other Redhat users don't have to manually fix it > next time. Nice rant. Unfortunately, a lot of it is equally applicable to Debian. Well, not the IPO stuff, of course, but Debian does have some bugs in the bug tracking system that are several years old (as is easy to verify for anyone who cares at http://bugs.debian.org/). There's a reason we're talking abou how it would be nice to get from 10,000 bugs down to 8,000 for the next release. > That might not be quite how it works now (and for their sake, I hope > not), but it sure looks that way from the outside, from the eyes of a > former loyal customer. Well, one difference with Debian is that most of our dirty underwear is publicly available, so instead of dreaming up scenarios about how we all go around self-promoting on conferences to look good for the next IPO, you can see how we spend the time insulting each other for not caring about . MfG Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Hawkins) wrote on 03.10.00 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix the irritating stupid bugs in the default Redhat ones. Of course, some enlightened Redhat employee will no doubt tell me I should register bug reports about their packages through official channels blah blah blah which is no use when you do that and the bug reports are ignored for over six months while Redhat are off promoting themselves at one conference or another, arse-kissing for more shareholders while at the other end screwing over the people that put them into the position they could IPO in in the first place. There's noone responsible for a package, unlike Debian (the other extreme) where each package has a maintainer who is responsible for making sure that package is reliable, security-conscious and integrates well into the rest of the system. With RH you just submit bug reports to some tracking system and three revisions down the track somebody will get back from self-promotion at whatever conference and go "damn, there's a lot of bug reports, I might look at one or two then delete the rest" and maybe your bug is one of the lucky two, so you and the millions of other Redhat users don't have to manually fix it next time. Nice rant. Unfortunately, a lot of it is equally applicable to Debian. Well, not the IPO stuff, of course, but Debian does have some bugs in the bug tracking system that are several years old (as is easy to verify for anyone who cares at http://bugs.debian.org/). There's a reason we're talking abou how it would be nice to get from 10,000 bugs down to 8,000 for the next release. That might not be quite how it works now (and for their sake, I hope not), but it sure looks that way from the outside, from the eyes of a former loyal customer. Well, one difference with Debian is that most of our dirty underwear is publicly available, so instead of dreaming up scenarios about how we all go around self-promoting on conferences to look good for the next IPO, you can see how we spend the time insulting each other for not caring about insert favourite topic here - free software, package quality, whatever. MfG Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Matthew Hawkins wrote: > > Perhaps you're getting Redhat confused with Debian here. Redhat doesn't > have package maintainers. It has 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters > recreating the works of Shakespeare, a la "it was the best of times, it > was the blurst of times" Er... Just a side note, and completely off-topic, but that's Dickens, not Shakespeare. Just thought I'd put my thought in... :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:27:36PM +0200, Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doesn't do much good if one of the compilers generates bogus output, > but obviously you never had to deal with the bug reports coming out of > distributors shipping $#@%$# pgcc as their default compiler. I did, but of course not with all such distributions and bug reports. > Looks to me like Alan's plonk was very appropriate here. No, what Alan did was proving bad taste, or bad mood, or whatever. This disucssion simply does not belong here and has nothig to do with the now-off-topic disucssion about binary incompatibility. As such, what Alan did was a cheap trick to try to draw attention away from the real problem. He didn't succeed, of course and I only accurse him of a temporary bad mood which I can certainly live with ;) On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:38:01PM +0200, Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > release? Maybe you should stop insulting the people who are actually > doing the Free Software work Like myself?? > who just happens to be paid by Red Hat. Only a very small part, actually. That means that everybody should play well together, rather than trying to force non-standards onto others. > glibc-2.2 was put out as a release candidate. gcc on the other hand I > don't expect to see being released anytime soon enough for it to make > sense (I might be wrong), FYI: gcc is already "released" since quite some time. > binary compat problems, so far nobody has even been able to agree on > the naming scheme of the shared libstdc++ package, we just have to > wait for 3.0. Unfortunately some company couldn't wait. The higher numbers probably... -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> "Harald" == Harald Dunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harald> It seems that you are ignoring other major distros (Slackware, Harald> Suse, Debian, etc.) as well as commercial software. By Harald> providing an incompatible binary interface RedHat splits the Harald> Linux community into 2 parts. I am *very* concerned about Harald> this. Harald> I guess that RedHat (as the owner of Cygnus and working very Harald> closely with the FSF) would have had sufficient arguments to Harald> get an official(!) gcc 2.96 before release date of RedHat Harald> 7.0. Just as they forced an official glibc-2.2 release through for the rh7 release? Maybe you should stop insulting the people who are actually doing the Free Software work who just happens to be paid by Red Hat. I would personally have preferred to see RH7 postponed at least until glibc-2.2 was put out as a release candidate. gcc on the other hand I don't expect to see being released anytime soon enough for it to make sense (I might be wrong), and Richard is quite right about the C++ binary compat problems, so far nobody has even been able to agree on the naming scheme of the shared libstdc++ package, we just have to wait for 3.0. Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> "Marc" == Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marc> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox Marc> <[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. Marc> Oh yes, of course while providing full binary compatibility. You Marc> can even mix & match objects from gcc and pgcc and agcc, no Marc> kidding. No distribution that used pgcc was ever binary Marc> incompatible to any other distribution, which is the point you Marc> keep ignoring. Doesn't do much good if one of the compilers generates bogus output, but obviously you never had to deal with the bug reports coming out of distributors shipping $#@%$# pgcc as their default compiler. Mandrake 6.0 was a disaster in this regard, people would mail you saying they used a standard RH6 to compile and the code didn't work, you made them use a working compiler (ie. not the pgcc crap) and the code suddenly worked just fine. Fortunately Mandrake becamse wiser and threw it away. Looks to me like Alan's plonk was very appropriate here. Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:37:26 -0400 Dmitri Pogosyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, being just an end customer, I would not judge technical quality > of RedHat packages [...] With that kind of general attitude, I suggest you stay well clear of used car salesmen (in particular). > I guess you were asking your questions in a language similar to the > one you used in your message here :( I'm not sure what you mean by asking questions, since submitting bug reports generally involves providing some sample erroneous output or proof of erroneus behaviour, and hopefully a patch (or patches) to fix it. To some extent it even involves being active on relevent lists, helping others with their problems you've got a fix for, and getting help from others who have fixed things you haven't. I don't think I'd be too wrong in saying most people here are the same, and have done/do the above. Also through lack of use I've unfortunately lost my fluency in German and Japanese, so I'm stuck conversing in my native English (although I apologise if I let any local slang slip through, I'm happy to clarify off the list) -- Matt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On 2000-10-02T21:40:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary > snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done > completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e., > Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really > thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using --- especially when > the package maintainer in many cases is employed by Red Hat?) Horrors, the release of the product might have had to wait until the formal release was done! There is also that a) it looks like a split in the Linux "community" if the others chose to ship the official glibc/gcc (with incompatibilities), or b) it looks like Red Hat was leading the "pack" again and everyone else had to follow because of it. > Certainly the LSB will hopefully solve many of these problems. > Unfortunately, the LSB isn't ready yet. Getting more people to help > work on the LSB would be a big help on that score. This was a huge kick back for the LSB. The LSB's job definetely is to specify the ABI, but why do we need an LSB if vendors just ship whatever they want? > (*) I note Ulrich has yet to make a public statement guarateeing that > there won't be any ABI compatibility problems between RH 7.0 and glibc > 2.2. I am still hoping there won't be any (knock on wood) Most definetely. I do hope for everyone that glibc 2.2 will be compatible. Because if there are, we'll either see big ISVs pressing everyone else to using / providing a compatible glibc (if that can be easily done) or the other way around. Both of which have their own political issues. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Development HA -- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Hi there, it is totally funny, how technical based discussion, and one of those was the discussion wether using a unpublished non existent compiler and a non existent release was a good idea or not , became suddenly a type of self presentating thread. > And severely biased groundless pointless Red Hat bashing does? It is, rather a fun read though. Mike, Igmar and whomever thinks that adding the finger pointing to this are showing this here. For you Mike, do you think that, from the support point of view using this compiler set was a good idea ? You suddenly have and will have more of this request for support on the lkml like the initial "bashing (bending your words here) the "what's up with redhat"" but merely because there has been no good communication of what is included and why and how to get around the limitations by redhat. It is fact that the compiler isn't published by gcc. Maybe cygnus is supporting this "made up release" but gcc is not as far as I know. There is simply no thing as a gcc-2.96, and it doesn't matter wether it is binary or source compatible or not. The users think hey, here is a release redhat have and others don't. This is simply the way one would expect from Redmond based companies. Same with the glibc. And I do have some support for the people arguing in some kind of conspiracy based thinking that redhat tries to "fork" GNU/Linux in kind of way because of their market influence at the moment and therefore extending this market power into the future with an incompatible distribution. People from redhat here talk about "innovation" but hey, they didn't even were able to get the fixes for the libraries enlightenment was based on into in a timely manner. And users were stick with the old buggy ones. There are a lot other examples here. Take the Duron (Thunderbird?) issue. Same stuff here. So I really take Alan's and others words (and credibility) for it that redhat-gcc-2.96 is worth the hassle, smae as the beta--redhat-glibc2.2. But sometimes redhat really makes me wonder, especially looking into their arguing (and that of it's employees) why certain things aren't integrated in their distribution (reiserfs anybody?) Especially since some people are desperately trying to banish it from the kernel, beeing there technical arguments or not. It really is funny that some things don't get integrated while others which are unstable and highly experimental are. Sometimes I think that there are more political reasons than technical. It is a big step for a company that was always using rather old versions of the included software now is going out and using "beta-stuff-in-terms-or-releases" in their new distribution. Is it now the time for marketeers ? What is, however, is fascinating me is that the tidal waves are getting higher and easily personal here. That seems to prove that there is more into this than just technical reasoning. With best regards Michael Meding - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Matthew Hawkins wrote: > > One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior > quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed > packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own > RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix the irritating > stupid bugs in the default Redhat ones. Of course, some enlightened > Redhat employee will no doubt tell me I should register bug reports > about their packages through official channels blah blah blah which is > no use when you do that and the bug reports are ignored for over six > months while Redhat are off promoting themselves at one conference Well, being just an end customer, I would not judge technical quality of RedHat packages, but should note that they have been extremely responsive with the bugs reports I have submitted. The longest wait for a reply I ever had was 4 days, usually I was geting replies within 48 hours. I guess you were asking your questions in a language similar to the one you used in your message here :( Dmitri Pogosyan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Matthew Hawkins wrote: One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix the irritating stupid bugs in the default Redhat ones. Of course, some enlightened Redhat employee will no doubt tell me I should register bug reports about their packages through official channels blah blah blah which is no use when you do that and the bug reports are ignored for over six months while Redhat are off promoting themselves at one conference Well, being just an end customer, I would not judge technical quality of RedHat packages, but should note that they have been extremely responsive with the bugs reports I have submitted. The longest wait for a reply I ever had was 4 days, usually I was geting replies within 48 hours. I guess you were asking your questions in a language similar to the one you used in your message here :( Dmitri Pogosyan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Hi there, it is totally funny, how technical based discussion, and one of those was the discussion wether using a unpublished non existent compiler and a non existent release was a good idea or not , became suddenly a type of self presentating thread. And severely biased groundless pointless Red Hat bashing does? It is, rather a fun read though. Mike, Igmar and whomever thinks that adding the finger pointing to this are showing this here. For you Mike, do you think that, from the support point of view using this compiler set was a good idea ? You suddenly have and will have more of this request for support on the lkml like the initial "bashing (bending your words here) the "what's up with redhat"" but merely because there has been no good communication of what is included and why and how to get around the limitations by redhat. It is fact that the compiler isn't published by gcc. Maybe cygnus is supporting this "made up release" but gcc is not as far as I know. There is simply no thing as a gcc-2.96, and it doesn't matter wether it is binary or source compatible or not. The users think hey, here is a release redhat have and others don't. This is simply the way one would expect from Redmond based companies. Same with the glibc. And I do have some support for the people arguing in some kind of conspiracy based thinking that redhat tries to "fork" GNU/Linux in kind of way because of their market influence at the moment and therefore extending this market power into the future with an incompatible distribution. People from redhat here talk about "innovation" but hey, they didn't even were able to get the fixes for the libraries enlightenment was based on into in a timely manner. And users were stick with the old buggy ones. There are a lot other examples here. Take the Duron (Thunderbird?) issue. Same stuff here. So I really take Alan's and others words (and credibility) for it that redhat-gcc-2.96 is worth the hassle, smae as the beta--redhat-glibc2.2. But sometimes redhat really makes me wonder, especially looking into their arguing (and that of it's employees) why certain things aren't integrated in their distribution (reiserfs anybody?) Especially since some people are desperately trying to banish it from the kernel, beeing there technical arguments or not. It really is funny that some things don't get integrated while others which are unstable and highly experimental are. Sometimes I think that there are more political reasons than technical. It is a big step for a company that was always using rather old versions of the included software now is going out and using "beta-stuff-in-terms-or-releases" in their new distribution. Is it now the time for marketeers ? What is, however, is fascinating me is that the tidal waves are getting higher and easily personal here. That seems to prove that there is more into this than just technical reasoning. With best regards Michael Meding - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On 2000-10-02T21:40:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e., Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using --- especially when the package maintainer in many cases is employed by Red Hat?) Horrors, the release of the product might have had to wait until the formal release was done! There is also that a) it looks like a split in the Linux "community" if the others chose to ship the official glibc/gcc (with incompatibilities), or b) it looks like Red Hat was leading the "pack" again and everyone else had to follow because of it. Certainly the LSB will hopefully solve many of these problems. Unfortunately, the LSB isn't ready yet. Getting more people to help work on the LSB would be a big help on that score. This was a huge kick back for the LSB. The LSB's job definetely is to specify the ABI, but why do we need an LSB if vendors just ship whatever they want? (*) I note Ulrich has yet to make a public statement guarateeing that there won't be any ABI compatibility problems between RH 7.0 and glibc 2.2. I am still hoping there won't be any (knock on wood) Most definetely. I do hope for everyone that glibc 2.2 will be compatible. Because if there are, we'll either see big ISVs pressing everyone else to using / providing a compatible glibc (if that can be easily done) or the other way around. Both of which have their own political issues. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée [EMAIL PROTECTED] Development HA -- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:37:26 -0400 Dmitri Pogosyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, being just an end customer, I would not judge technical quality of RedHat packages [...] With that kind of general attitude, I suggest you stay well clear of used car salesmen (in particular). I guess you were asking your questions in a language similar to the one you used in your message here :( I'm not sure what you mean by asking questions, since submitting bug reports generally involves providing some sample erroneous output or proof of erroneus behaviour, and hopefully a patch (or patches) to fix it. To some extent it even involves being active on relevent lists, helping others with their problems you've got a fix for, and getting help from others who have fixed things you haven't. I don't think I'd be too wrong in saying most people here are the same, and have done/do the above. Also through lack of use I've unfortunately lost my fluency in German and Japanese, so I'm stuck conversing in my native English (although I apologise if I let any local slang slip through, I'm happy to clarify off the list) -- Matt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
"Marc" == Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Alan Cox Marc [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. Marc Oh yes, of course while providing full binary compatibility. You Marc can even mix match objects from gcc and pgcc and agcc, no Marc kidding. No distribution that used pgcc was ever binary Marc incompatible to any other distribution, which is the point you Marc keep ignoring. Doesn't do much good if one of the compilers generates bogus output, but obviously you never had to deal with the bug reports coming out of distributors shipping $#@%$# pgcc as their default compiler. Mandrake 6.0 was a disaster in this regard, people would mail you saying they used a standard RH6 to compile and the code didn't work, you made them use a working compiler (ie. not the pgcc crap) and the code suddenly worked just fine. Fortunately Mandrake becamse wiser and threw it away. Looks to me like Alan's plonk was very appropriate here. Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
"Harald" == Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harald It seems that you are ignoring other major distros (Slackware, Harald Suse, Debian, etc.) as well as commercial software. By Harald providing an incompatible binary interface RedHat splits the Harald Linux community into 2 parts. I am *very* concerned about Harald this. Harald I guess that RedHat (as the owner of Cygnus and working very Harald closely with the FSF) would have had sufficient arguments to Harald get an official(!) gcc 2.96 before release date of RedHat Harald 7.0. Just as they forced an official glibc-2.2 release through for the rh7 release? Maybe you should stop insulting the people who are actually doing the Free Software work who just happens to be paid by Red Hat. I would personally have preferred to see RH7 postponed at least until glibc-2.2 was put out as a release candidate. gcc on the other hand I don't expect to see being released anytime soon enough for it to make sense (I might be wrong), and Richard is quite right about the C++ binary compat problems, so far nobody has even been able to agree on the naming scheme of the shared libstdc++ package, we just have to wait for 3.0. Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:27:36PM +0200, Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't do much good if one of the compilers generates bogus output, but obviously you never had to deal with the bug reports coming out of distributors shipping $#@%$# pgcc as their default compiler. I did, but of course not with all such distributions and bug reports. Looks to me like Alan's plonk was very appropriate here. No, what Alan did was proving bad taste, or bad mood, or whatever. This disucssion simply does not belong here and has nothig to do with the now-off-topic disucssion about binary incompatibility. As such, what Alan did was a cheap trick to try to draw attention away from the real problem. He didn't succeed, of course and I only accurse him of a temporary bad mood which I can certainly live with ;) On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:38:01PM +0200, Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: release? Maybe you should stop insulting the people who are actually doing the Free Software work Like myself?? who just happens to be paid by Red Hat. Only a very small part, actually. That means that everybody should play well together, rather than trying to force non-standards onto others. glibc-2.2 was put out as a release candidate. gcc on the other hand I don't expect to see being released anytime soon enough for it to make sense (I might be wrong), FYI: gcc is already "released" since quite some time. binary compat problems, so far nobody has even been able to agree on the naming scheme of the shared libstdc++ package, we just have to wait for 3.0. Unfortunately some company couldn't wait. The higher numbers probably... -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Matthew Hawkins wrote: Perhaps you're getting Redhat confused with Debian here. Redhat doesn't have package maintainers. It has 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters recreating the works of Shakespeare, a la "it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times" Er... Just a side note, and completely off-topic, but that's Dickens, not Shakespeare. Just thought I'd put my thought in... :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:40:59 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really > thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using Perhaps you're getting Redhat confused with Debian here. Redhat doesn't have package maintainers. It has 1,000 monkeys at 1,000 typewriters recreating the works of Shakespeare, a la "it was the best of times, it was the blurst of times" One reason I stopped running and recommending Redhat was the inferior quality of their packages. They'd ship half-complete, half-assed packages and it was concerned end-users who'd have to make their own RPMS and kindly make them available to the world, to fix the irritating stupid bugs in the default Redhat ones. Of course, some enlightened Redhat employee will no doubt tell me I should register bug reports about their packages through official channels blah blah blah which is no use when you do that and the bug reports are ignored for over six months while Redhat are off promoting themselves at one conference or another, arse-kissing for more shareholders while at the other end screwing over the people that put them into the position they could IPO in in the first place. There's noone responsible for a package, unlike Debian (the other extreme) where each package has a maintainer who is responsible for making sure that package is reliable, security-conscious and integrates well into the rest of the system. With RH you just submit bug reports to some tracking system and three revisions down the track somebody will get back from self-promotion at whatever conference and go "damn, there's a lot of bug reports, I might look at one or two then delete the rest" and maybe your bug is one of the lucky two, so you and the millions of other Redhat users don't have to manually fix it next time. That might not be quite how it works now (and for their sake, I hope not), but it sure looks that way from the outside, from the eyes of a former loyal customer. That, combined with the fact they somehow managed to get a hold of certain key kernel developers so stable linux kernel developments by their competitors don't get integrated into the stable kernel (eg, reiserfs & a better VM for 2.2, both sponsored in part or full by SuSE) really ticks me off as a person who cares more about a quality, useful Linux in general and not about generation of revenue for shareholders at the expense of all else. I'm not surprised Redhat 7.0 is full of bugs, everybody should know by now that you have to wait for 7.2 so the SuSE and Debian guys have time to fix some of the bugs in the initial release. BUGTRAQ is usually hard to ignore... Oh yeah, I posted these and a few other concerns not really worth repeating to this list for topic/breveties sake, to the appropriate channels @redhat three years ago and, surprise surprise, was ignored just like every other legitimate bug report or compalint. Maybe a public post when an obvious outcome of their problems they haven't addresed over this time becomes headlines might spur someone into action over there. I'd really really hate to see Redhat go under, which is the ultimate eventuality I feel if they continue down this course. Redhat do a lot of good things in other areas which is good for Linux as a whole. Unfortunately quality isn't one of them, neither is support. Erik, Bob, Mike.. guys.. please fix. For many people Redhat == Linux and we need to show that Linux == great, not Linux == mediocre. Make use of the community, eg Linuxcare might be a good choice to outsource support to so you can forget about that bit to some extent and concentrate on other bits. Just some suggestions, I'm trying to be constructive :) Cheers, -- Matt (speaking for myself, not my company) PS: Yes, Alan, I'm a paranoid loon, just like the many many other paranoid loons who have observed exactly the same things, said it out of concern for you and the other usually good guys there, and get labelled... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote: >Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:09:33 +0200 >From: Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0? > >On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:33:31PM -0400, Horst von Brand ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > many others. >> >> What makes Debian's package management "reasonable" where others aren't? > >This *really* doesn't belong on linux-kernel. And severely biased groundless pointless Red Hat bashing does? -- Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Open source advocate Computer Consultant - Capslock Consulting Copyright 2000 all rights reserved -- #[Mike A. Harris bash tip #1 - separate history files per virtual console] # Put the following at the bottom of your ~/.bash_profile [ ! -d ~/.bash_histdir ] && mkdir ~/.bash_histdir tty |grep "^/dev/tty[0-9]" >& /dev/null && \ export HISTFILE=~/.bash_histdir/.$(tty | sed -e 's/.*\///') - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:07:49 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 broken PIII FXSAVE code that I'd vetoed from RH kernels to send them your mail Ted. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think you owe an apology We all ship buggy code from time to time, despite our best efforts to avoid it. And I certainly appreciate it when other people cover for mistakes I or my company makes. I try to do the same, such as when I had to cover for Debian users when they screwed up e2fsprogs during the a.out -> glibc transition. (Also, if I recall correctly, there was at least one case where a version of the busted PIII FXSAVE patch made it into a shipping RH kernel, and we had to remove it, but that's neither here nor there.) This is completely beside the point I was trying to make, though. I was trying to say that by having Red Hat ship weird snapshots of things which have ABI implications (such as some arbitrary snapshot of gcc with C++ ABI issues), or things which _might_ have ABI implications (such as the pre-release of glibc 2.2 (*) --- this hurts the Linux community. It makes life arbitrarily harder for other ISV's who need to be stable ABI so they can write to a standard Linux paltform. It also makes life harder for other distributions, who at least for the moment seem to think that they have to Red Hat binary compatible because their customers demand it. So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e., Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using --- especially when the package maintainer in many cases is employed by Red Hat?) Certainly the LSB will hopefully solve many of these problems. Unfortunately, the LSB isn't ready yet. Getting more people to help work on the LSB would be a big help on that score. - Ted (*) I note Ulrich has yet to make a public statement guarateeing that there won't be any ABI compatibility problems between RH 7.0 and glibc 2.2. I am still hoping there won't be any (knock on wood) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:33:31PM -0400, Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > many others. > > What makes Debian's package management "reasonable" where others aren't? This *really* doesn't belong on linux-kernel. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then > can you send me a diff Actually for 7.2 i change our egcs package to add a kgcc script (which call gcc with the egcs compiler) to be compatible with your last changes on 2.2.18, so no need mdk specific code . (and i believe kgcc name or something else should be standardized around the distrib). -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> fyi you can compile with egcs with using "gcc -V`egcs-version`" for > mandrake when you have the egcs package installed. If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then can you send me a diff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Alan Cox wrote: > I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. I got bored of > libc2 a while back. I prefer change Reasonable coordinated change, or reckless change? How about shipping a new distribution with a 2.3.x kernel patched in-house to get rid of most of the oopsen? This is not conceptually all that different than shipping a distribution with a patched version of a not-yet-released compiler. You are trading innovation for stability; innovation is only useful to people if it offers sufficient stability and permanency to get the job done. Change that propagates smoothly through acceptable channels is no doubt a good thing. The Linux Kernel enjoys a high rate of change and attempts to appeal to a wide audience; for this it has achieved excellent name recognition world-wide. Despite that, with the possible exception of early versions of 0.x, the kernel has always offered a stable branch that changed comparatively little versus the development branch; this gave library and application developers a chance to sync up, resulting in a kernel that was actually useful to somebody other than a kernel developer. Had Linus, instead, kept only a development kernel that changed hourly, never stopping long enough to get the drivers updated to the structures in the core, then the fragmentation in users of that kernel would have had a serious negative impact on the viability and popularity of Linux to the computing world at large. Change that is fragmented, leaving discontinuities, has high entropy and a general lack of solidity. Granted, the customized software RedHat ships that results in binary incompatibility is a slightly different concept than degree of change. But the end result is similar. A coordinated effort between RedHat and the other distribution builders to achieve a common framework for advancement would not hinder development; to the contrary, the common ground achieved from such a coordinated effort would make Linux that much stronger. Kris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Richard Henderson wrote: > The reasons are the following: > > : > (2) C++ in 2.95 is already ABI incompatible with egcs 1.1 and gcc 3.0, > so clearly (to my mind anyway) it didn't matter whether we > shipped 2.95 or a snapshot, we would still be incompatible with > Red Hat 6 and Red Hat 8. > It seems that you are ignoring other major distros (Slackware, Suse, Debian, etc.) as well as commercial software. By providing an incompatible binary interface RedHat splits the Linux community into 2 parts. I am *very* concerned about this. I guess that RedHat (as the owner of Cygnus and working very closely with the FSF) would have had sufficient arguments to get an official(!) gcc 2.96 before release date of RedHat 7.0. Regards Harri - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
fyi you can compile with egcs with using "gcc -V`egcs-version`" for mandrake when you have the egcs package installed. If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then can you send me a diff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want mandrake builds to auto detect the compiler and use that one then can you send me a diff Actually for 7.2 i change our egcs package to add a kgcc script (which call gcc with the egcs compiler) to be compatible with your last changes on 2.2.18, so no need mdk specific code . (and i believe kgcc name or something else should be standardized around the distrib). -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:07:49 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 broken PIII FXSAVE code that I'd vetoed from RH kernels to send them your mail Ted. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think you owe an apology We all ship buggy code from time to time, despite our best efforts to avoid it. And I certainly appreciate it when other people cover for mistakes I or my company makes. I try to do the same, such as when I had to cover for Debian users when they screwed up e2fsprogs during the a.out - glibc transition. (Also, if I recall correctly, there was at least one case where a version of the busted PIII FXSAVE patch made it into a shipping RH kernel, and we had to remove it, but that's neither here nor there.) This is completely beside the point I was trying to make, though. I was trying to say that by having Red Hat ship weird snapshots of things which have ABI implications (such as some arbitrary snapshot of gcc with C++ ABI issues), or things which _might_ have ABI implications (such as the pre-release of glibc 2.2 (*) --- this hurts the Linux community. It makes life arbitrarily harder for other ISV's who need to be stable ABI so they can write to a standard Linux paltform. It also makes life harder for other distributions, who at least for the moment seem to think that they have to Red Hat binary compatible because their customers demand it. So the other distributions end up having to take the same arbitrary snapshot as what RH chose, which from the outside seems like it's done completely outside of the package author/maintainer's control. (i.e., Why didn't the package maintainer issue a formal release, if they really thought it was the best thing for RedHat to be using --- especially when the package maintainer in many cases is employed by Red Hat?) Certainly the LSB will hopefully solve many of these problems. Unfortunately, the LSB isn't ready yet. Getting more people to help work on the LSB would be a big help on that score. - Ted (*) I note Ulrich has yet to make a public statement guarateeing that there won't be any ABI compatibility problems between RH 7.0 and glibc 2.2. I am still hoping there won't be any (knock on wood) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
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 Debian's package management "reasonable" where others aren't? -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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?) ... On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:32:15 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote: (Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?) ... On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:41:11 +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote: (Subject: Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?) ... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > > > environment to use them :( > > Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide? We are talking binaries here, but anyway, what you say is easy to do: nobody *forces* you to apply their patches or forces you to even use their sourcecode. Go and fetch the official apcahe, it will just run fine. > THAT is OFFENDING! Not just the fact whatever who want's to be True, it is offending in some sense, but this is not specific to suse and is, while maybe worthwhile on a "bash all distributions"-list (or even here ;) is not the actual point, which is binary incompatibility because of forked versions for no benefits. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And a "deliberate decision" by a "bunch of guys" (which by some freak > accident of fate just so happens includes several of the lead people on the > involved software projects) can't ever be right, or even just be a honest > mistake. N, it _has_ to be sabotage, planned and executed by His > Evilness Himself. Now that'd an interesting new idea ;) Anyway, no, there is no conspiracy theory, just a lot of very bad actions of some company in a row that adds a a lot of extra, unneecessary work and confusion to the free software community. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:07:11AM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why do you keep ignoring this point? > > I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. Hmm... there is some misunderstanding here, see: > I got bored of libc2 a while back. I prefer change Now, what would you think if you developed libc2 and were about to go to libc3 and then some company took libc2 made their own libc3 which is incompatible to the libc3 that has been publicly announced some time ago, put *your* address into the bug-report address if *their* libc3, told the public nothing about the highly experimental aspect of their libc3 (that will certainly not be compatible to the "official" libc3) etc.. etc... I certainly am not "never change anything", I wouldn't have tried to patch that pgcc thingy if I were. I am against mindless forking without stating this, though, even if allowed by the license. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these > libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant The pthreads one was a forked someone version. > came from the official sources and were compatible to the official > versions. Even egcs made a large effort to become gcc compatible. > > Why do you keep ignoring this point? I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. I got bored of libc2 a while back. I prefer change - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> That what you say is simply not true, so what's _your_ point in claiming > this? Well, you seem to be down on voices to back you up.. You talking bogus. > One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their > platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, > the official ones (released by the official maintainers) always were > enough. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > > environment to use them :( > > And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE > enviroment ?? 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. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:36:00PM +0100, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their > > platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, > > You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets > of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats why we > need the LSB work You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant facts about library incompatibilities, but the fact is that all these came from the official sources and were compatible to the official versions. Even egcs made a large effort to become gcc compatible. Why do you keep ignoring this point? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
"Chris McClellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Their normal gcc is 2.96, which I'm sure you have heard 50,000 times now. > > RH7 also installs "kgcc" which is gcc 2.91.xx (the same gcc > that comes with RH6.2). > > I believe if you set your CC to kgcc, you can possibly compile the kernel. > However, I have not tried this yet. Has anyone else on this list tried > it? On i686 (RH 6.9.5) and SPARC (RH 6.2 + selected packages from 6.9.5 sources). Works fine with Alan's 2.2.18pre kernels, at least. -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > Obviously redhat did and does a lot of similar braindamage, which could be > called "bugs" (no version of perl on redhat cd's really worked correctly > for example). > Again, the choice redhat did can not be construed as being some mistake by > some guy or a group of guys. It was a deliberate decision. And a "deliberate decision" by a "bunch of guys" (which by some freak accident of fate just so happens includes several of the lead people on the involved software projects) can't ever be right, or even just be a honest mistake. N, it _has_ to be sabotage, planned and executed by His Evilness Himself. -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Igmar Palsenberg wrote: > > > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > > environment to use them :( Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide? I wish you good louck getting your hands on adabas and other stuff they require, which doesn't come with the distribution itself THAT is OFFENDING! Not just the fact whatever who want's to be the offical version of something - read: "With blessing from RMS instead of the employer of the people who do the actual work". > And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE > enviroment ?? > > Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> 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. Well, than I still have to find out why this tool build on SuSE SIG11's on Debian. A rebuild solved it. But then again, I have to do something in my spare time.. But let's quit this stupid thread. Distrib and OS wars lead to nothing. If you don't like a distrib : Don't use it. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their > platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats why we need the LSB work - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > environment to use them :( And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE enviroment ?? Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t
> this would be differemt, but AFAIK the redhat package management system is > not able to provide for this). You have no idea what you're talking about. > > So let's die this thread, or at least the name-calling right now. I'll try > as best as I can to keep the disucssion to the original, on-topic point > only. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> Well, the glibc-2.1 on redhat disks acted differently than the glibc-2.1 > in the cvs repository or on the ftp servers, but that does not mean that > the actual glibc code is the culprit. Again, please read what I actually > wrote, not only the parts that others have quoted. Did you EVER looked at the differences ?? Looking at your statement probably not. So do so before making these kind of idiotic statements. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> > 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. If you really want broken and expirimental stuff go work for M$ or so. > > to flame SuSE, Conectiva, and especially Mandrake as well - all of them made > > up of hardworking people trying to do what they think is best for Linux. I > > Indeed. So why does redhat so a remarkably *bad* job at the same? SuSE for > example did *not* make their distribution incompatible to all others to > try to tie customers to them. So everybody their own distribution. I think SuSE sucks, it's overbloated, the apps are way to old on it, and the installer sucks. But that doesn't mean I would say 'Do't use SuSE, it's bad.' I last looked at a version 2 years ago, so things have changed. > Well, if redhat really tried to do this they failed miserably. OTOH, maybe > the redhat people doing that were drugged, because every child could > deduce that using an experimental snapshot that is has a non-fixed and > changing ABI will not help binary compatibility. > > > Let me metion the Nazi's. Now can the thread die ? > > Aren't you paid by redhat? ;-> Let this thread die. Now. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:39:06PM -0400, Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled > > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > > environment to use them :( > > Has happened on and off with each distribution I've ever played with. The > point being? That what you say is simply not true, so what's _your_ point in claiming this? One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, the official ones (released by the official maintainers) always were enough. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> 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 different than the stock 2.2.16) causes my > system come to a screeching halt, no messages, no errors, crashed solid. > > I have a Supermicro PIIIDME motherboard with a GeForce2 graphics card, > adaptec 2940UW scsi and seagate UW 9 gig scsi drive. Please redirect this peace of total wothless information to some other list. Give some errors instead of barking. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled > on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime > environment to use them :( Has happened on and off with each distribution I've ever played with. The point being? -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:18:36PM +0200, Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C++ ABI breaking: SuSE managed to break the VShop application in an > entierly insane way between releases 6.1 and 6.2 - they stiupid did > recompile the libstdc++ with a new compiler and didn't even > bother to increment the binary version of this library > At RedHat at least they know what they are changing... Obviously redhat did and does a lot of similar braindamage, which could be called "bugs" (no version of perl on redhat cd's really worked correctly for example). Again, the choice redhat did can not be construed as being some mistake by some guy or a group of guys. It was a deliberate decision. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Richard Henderson wrote: > Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other > Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until > everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since > there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved. C++ ABI breaking: SuSE managed to break the VShop application in an entierly insane way between releases 6.1 and 6.2 - they stiupid did recompile the libstdc++ with a new compiler and didn't even bother to increment the binary version of this library At RedHat at least they know what they are changing... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > 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. You would be wrong then. Management asked what version of gcc would be best to support, we answered, they followed our recomendation. If you want to blame someone in Red Hat for making the decision to ship a gcc snapshot, then you might as well blame me. The reasons are the following: (1) 2.95 is the least stable release that we (the fsf gcc team) have shipped in a long time. It does ok on x86, but is pathetic on the other platforms that Red Hat cares about -- especially Alpha. The late July snapshot we shipped is most definitely more stable, largely I think due to Geoff's automated regression tester bitching at people when they break the tree. (2) C++ in 2.95 is already ABI incompatible with egcs 1.1 and gcc 3.0, so clearly (to my mind anyway) it didn't matter whether we shipped 2.95 or a snapshot, we would still be incompatible with Red Hat 6 and Red Hat 8. (3) While the C++ ABI for 3.0 is not complete, the API is. That is, the snapshot we chose will be compatible with 3.0 at the source level. With the exception of "export" I understand from Jason that we are now very close to standards conformance. (4) We could either spend our QA time reviving the dead 2.95 branch, or we could spend that QA effort on mainline, helping get 3.0 stable. Someone on this thread complained that the RPM that we shipped is highly patched. Bar two (the subreg_byte patches), all of those patches are in current cvs. Since at some point procedure would not allow us to take a new snapshot, those 85 patches are a visible side-effect of the QA work that was done. Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved. Flame away. r~ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Hi Martin, > WHAT? Are you nuts - they pay breed for many of the core kernel > developers - I think if they didn't those would actually > have entierly stopped working on Linux otherwise just after finishing > scool and going into the real world out there. You can't hardly call > this behaviour *demanging*!!! And then there is Alan himself! Sure, and we do not have any demand for higly skilled, motivated kernel developers ? If redhat wouldn't have employed then somebody else would and maybe redhat wouldn't be in the situation of having access to their knowledge and their support when it comes to really tricky solutions. I don't think your point holds. They do not employ the developers out of pure altruism. They have a knowledgetransfer and they can use that for their support. They do earn their money with consulting. Or least to say, that is where the real money should come from. Greetings Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Their normal gcc is 2.96, which I'm sure you have heard 50,000 times now. RH7 also installs "kgcc" which is gcc 2.91.xx (the same gcc that comes with RH6.2). I believe if you set your CC to kgcc, you can possibly compile the kernel. However, I have not tried this yet. Has anyone else on this list tried it? - Original Message - From: "David M. Rector" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM Subject: What is up with Redhat 7.0? 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 different than the stock 2.2.16) causes my system come to a screeching halt, no messages, no errors, crashed solid. I have a Supermicro PIIIDME motherboard with a GeForce2 graphics card, adaptec 2940UW scsi and seagate UW 9 gig scsi drive. Dave Rector *:^) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:06:52PM +0200, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering > > Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of > > BTW, AFAIK gcc is the only large free software project that has an "AFAIK" has a very low information content. Alan just informed me that the gnome project has a similar anti-takeover-rule (trying to avoid a mail flood here ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) > > Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit about RH > owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering > Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of BTW, AFAIK gcc is the only large free software project that has an explicit rule that (quote): * No single organization is allowed to have 50% or more of the votes. [This includes groups of developers from the same company or a university] The cygnus/redhat merger was indeed a point where this rule had to be checked, fortunately even redhat+cygnus is well below the 50% mark. But even if it were true, it isn't good. > It is up to the release manager (following the release criteria) to > release GCC. It is not up to RedHat. But they can, if they want, ship an > unreleased GCC. Yes, they can do whatever they are allowed by the license, of course. The question is wether it's right, or what the consequences are. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain > about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which Now that's the problem. Claiming that redhat owns gcc (which is owned by the FSF) is one of the major points in this discussion. I am sure you just made a joke, but I miss the smileys... > And then there is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - so wht's up with the glibc? The same, see above :( Go through the changelog and you will see that drepper is by far not the only coder. Hey, I even see @suse in there. A lot! So what's up with glibc? Did you fell for some company's marketing droids? Surely you didn't... > I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take > even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable > versions. I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:50:44PM +0300, Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aside of that pre-processor noice I don't know if 2.96 is really Please keep in mind that there is no such definite thing as gcc-2.96. There is the redhat version (with unknown changes to the snapshot it bases on) and countless fsf snapshots of 2.96. They act similarly, but not the same, complicating any discussion about it. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Martin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain > about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which > isn't. > (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit about RH owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of GCC. Note that the current release manager is not a Redhat employee --- kind of scuppers your conspiracy theory, doesn't it? It is up to the release manager (following the release criteria) to release GCC. It is not up to RedHat. But they can, if they want, ship an unreleased GCC. Personally, I consider it extremely unwise to ship a (really rather unstable and wobbly) snapshot --- but it does rather depend on when it was forked. For some of this year the GCC snapshots have actually been almost usable. Unfortunately it'll be rather hard to consider bug reports from RH7 users for any packages at all though, because it is comparatively that anything that goes wrong is a compiler bug :( > I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take > even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable > versions. `Very outdated'? GCC-2.95.2 was released on Sun Oct 24 23:54:10 PDT 1999, according to the ChangeLog. GCC-2.7 is very outdated. GCC-2.95.2 is frankly not. > > version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by > > making redhat binary incompatibly to other linux distributions, therefore That is unfortunately correct :( I do wonder what drugs whoever it was that decided to do this within RH were on :( Bug reproduction will probably become extremely difficult because we don't know when the RH GCC was forked (or do we?) and what patches have been applied to it. Essentially RH now have their `own GCC' that anyone considering fixing a bug report from an RH7 person must have on their system. Not at all ideal. -- `Ergotism is what you get if you overuse the word "therefore". Egotism on the other hand is a form of "I" strain.' --- Paul Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann wrote: > If you disagree personally or technically with me you either say this > in public or private or keep quiet. Attacking me over totally unrelated > things is obviously some maneuver to distract people from the real, > kernel-related question, and I have no idea why you are doing this... > > After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages > linux (the kernel), other distributions (who probably would like to do the > same) and free softwrae projects JUST NOW should not leave you quietly > obeying (mind you, I am not the only one saying this). WHAT? Are you nuts - they pay breed for many of the core kernel developers - I think if they didn't those would actually have entierly stopped working on Linux otherwise just after finishing scool and going into the real world out there. You can't hardly call this behaviour *demanging*!!! And then there is Alan himself! > Redhat certainly is not special compared to other distros. But redhat is > the largest one, and they started the trend to monopolize the market at > the cost of morality, ethics and free software. Just tell me what's about ethics involved here - they just do business here and they do it in a *very* open way indeed. This is what the GPL is explicitly permitting them to do. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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. And then there isn't anything I could see which would prohibit anybody from taking gcc-2.96 and ship it in any distro they wish too. Alan you are in full right here the gcc-2.96 DOES a significantly *better* job on in esp. C++ for example then any other gcc before - at least on the arch's which really matter those days. The PGCC never really worked. In fact on TeX at least it generated worder code then the plain gcc-2.7.3 those day's - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann wrote: > > 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 to deal with crap from VA customers because VA > > Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think you owe an apology > > Actually, it's redhat who owes an apology to the commnity at large for > _already_ creating a maintainance hassle for gcc and other free software > projects because they receive bogus bug reports because redhat shipped > a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which isn't. (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) And then there is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - so wht's up with the glibc? I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable versions. > version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by > making redhat binary incompatibly to other linux distributions, therefore > effectively forking gnu/linux in a way unseen before.(*) > > However, I can understand that you have to support redhat and have > probably lost your neutrality. > > (*) redhat is a major distribution and obviously now plays monopoly games. > > -- > -==- | > ==-- _ | > ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- > --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| > -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ > The choice of a GNU generation | > | > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- - phone: +49 214 8656 283 - job: STOCK-WORLD Media AG, LEV .de (MY OPPINNIONS ARE MY OWN!) - langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: > > Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one. > > Broken in what way? Testcase? This is the worst: #define half(x) ((x) / 2) #define apply(...) apply2 (__VA_ARGS__) #define apply2(f,x) f (x) apply (half, X) Expands to `half (X)' when it should expand to `((X) / 2)'. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one. > > Broken in what way? Testcase? Propably the stricter interpretation of rules regarding ## attribute concatenation directive, and resulting material. I found bugs in my own source regarding that issue when I begun to use 2.96 (RH rawhide back then) at one of my machines. Once I understood the warning/error, it was quick to fix things properly at my source. Similar is needed for some Kernel macroes, IMO. Aside of that pre-processor noice I don't know if 2.96 is really buggy -- well, some strange combination of 2.96 2702 and glibc-devel-2.1.92-5 causes one of my codes to fail, but I haven't determined what really is going on (very deep macro wonders there...) When compiled with RH kgcc (egcs-1.1.2, that is), it works. > LLaP > bero /Matti Aarnio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
> BTW, VA's current kernel-in-testing has Trond's (now your! :-)) NFS, > rock-solid NFSD from Neil Brown and Dave Higgen, and FXSAVE support > back-ported from 2.4. I hope to get much of VA's kernel-in-testing > patch set into mainline 2.2 ... keeping up with N/2 patches is 4x > easier than N. (Or at least it seems so.) If its stable then yes. Minimal FXSAVE in 2.2 may well end up being required as applications start to use SSE and simply assume it works. I'm BTW impressed with the final version of the nfs patches, it was the rants about the old ones that put me off merging it but the latest set has generated 7 emails so far. All positive. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
According to Alan Cox: > Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA > shipped unusable NFS patches and broken PIII FXSAVE code that I'd vetoed > from RH kernels [...] NFS and FXSAVE. Ouch. Well, let's set the stage for the future: I'm doing kernel coordination for VA now. And I'm very careful not to break things. I may make mistakes -- heck, I *will* make mistakes; it's a big kernel, after all -- but I won't be negligent. I care greatly about stability ... just ask anyone who was around for the upgrade from Perl 5.3 to 5.4. BTW, VA's current kernel-in-testing has Trond's (now your! :-)) NFS, rock-solid NFSD from Neil Brown and Dave Higgen, and FXSAVE support back-ported from 2.4. I hope to get much of VA's kernel-in-testing patch set into mainline 2.2 ... keeping up with N/2 patches is 4x easier than N. (Or at least it seems so.) -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
According to Alan Cox: Remind me next time I get to deal with crap from VA customers because VA shipped unusable NFS patches and broken PIII FXSAVE code that I'd vetoed from RH kernels [...] NFS and FXSAVE. Ouch. Well, let's set the stage for the future: I'm doing kernel coordination for VA now. And I'm very careful not to break things. I may make mistakes -- heck, I *will* make mistakes; it's a big kernel, after all -- but I won't be negligent. I care greatly about stability ... just ask anyone who was around for the upgrade from Perl 5.3 to 5.4. BTW, VA's current kernel-in-testing has Trond's (now your! :-)) NFS, rock-solid NFSD from Neil Brown and Dave Higgen, and FXSAVE support back-ported from 2.4. I hope to get much of VA's kernel-in-testing patch set into mainline 2.2 ... keeping up with N/2 patches is 4x easier than N. (Or at least it seems so.) -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
BTW, VA's current kernel-in-testing has Trond's (now your! :-)) NFS, rock-solid NFSD from Neil Brown and Dave Higgen, and FXSAVE support back-ported from 2.4. I hope to get much of VA's kernel-in-testing patch set into mainline 2.2 ... keeping up with N/2 patches is 4x easier than N. (Or at least it seems so.) If its stable then yes. Minimal FXSAVE in 2.2 may well end up being required as applications start to use SSE and simply assume it works. I'm BTW impressed with the final version of the nfs patches, it was the rants about the old ones that put me off merging it but the latest set has generated 7 emails so far. All positive. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote: Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one. Broken in what way? Testcase? Propably the stricter interpretation of rules regarding ## attribute concatenation directive, and resulting material. I found bugs in my own source regarding that issue when I begun to use 2.96 (RH rawhide back then) at one of my machines. Once I understood the warning/error, it was quick to fix things properly at my source. Similar is needed for some Kernel macroes, IMO. Aside of that pre-processor noice I don't know if 2.96 is really buggy -- well, some strange combination of 2.96 2702 and glibc-devel-2.1.92-5 causes one of my codes to fail, but I haven't determined what really is going on (very deep macro wonders there...) When compiled with RH kgcc (egcs-1.1.2, that is), it works. LLaP bero /Matti Aarnio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: Hah! Even the preprocessor is broken in 2.96. I have to use an older one. Broken in what way? Testcase? This is the worst: #define half(x) ((x) / 2) #define apply(...) apply2 (__VA_ARGS__) #define apply2(f,x) f (x) apply (half, X) Expands to `half (X)' when it should expand to `((X) / 2)'. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann wrote: 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 to deal with crap from VA customers because VA Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think you owe an apology Actually, it's redhat who owes an apology to the commnity at large for _already_ creating a maintainance hassle for gcc and other free software projects because they receive bogus bug reports because redhat shipped a broken, experimental, unreleased compiler as if it were an official Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which isn't. (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) And then there is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - so wht's up with the glibc? I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable versions. version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by making redhat binary incompatibly to other linux distributions, therefore effectively forking gnu/linux in a way unseen before.(*) However, I can understand that you have to support redhat and have probably lost your neutrality. (*) redhat is a major distribution and obviously now plays monopoly games. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- - phone: +49 214 8656 283 - job: STOCK-WORLD Media AG, LEV .de (MY OPPINNIONS ARE MY OWN!) - langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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. And then there isn't anything I could see which would prohibit anybody from taking gcc-2.96 and ship it in any distro they wish too. Alan you are in full right here the gcc-2.96 DOES a significantly *better* job on in esp. C++ for example then any other gcc before - at least on the arch's which really matter those days. The PGCC never really worked. In fact on TeX at least it generated worder code then the plain gcc-2.7.3 those day's - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann wrote: If you disagree personally or technically with me you either say this in public or private or keep quiet. Attacking me over totally unrelated things is obviously some maneuver to distract people from the real, kernel-related question, and I have no idea why you are doing this... After all, even if you do work for redhat, the way redhat actively damages linux (the kernel), other distributions (who probably would like to do the same) and free softwrae projects JUST NOW should not leave you quietly obeying (mind you, I am not the only one saying this). WHAT? Are you nuts - they pay breed for many of the core kernel developers - I think if they didn't those would actually have entierly stopped working on Linux otherwise just after finishing scool and going into the real world out there. You can't hardly call this behaviour *demanging*!!! And then there is Alan himself! Redhat certainly is not special compared to other distros. But redhat is the largest one, and they started the trend to monopolize the market at the cost of morality, ethics and free software. Just tell me what's about ethics involved here - they just do business here and they do it in a *very* open way indeed. This is what the GPL is explicitly permitting them to do. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which isn't. (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit about RH owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of GCC. Note that the current release manager is not a Redhat employee --- kind of scuppers your conspiracy theory, doesn't it? It is up to the release manager (following the release criteria) to release GCC. It is not up to RedHat. But they can, if they want, ship an unreleased GCC. Personally, I consider it extremely unwise to ship a (really rather unstable and wobbly) snapshot --- but it does rather depend on when it was forked. For some of this year the GCC snapshots have actually been almost usable. Unfortunately it'll be rather hard to consider bug reports from RH7 users for any packages at all though, because it is comparatively that anything that goes wrong is a compiler bug :( I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable versions. `Very outdated'? GCC-2.95.2 was released on Sun Oct 24 23:54:10 PDT 1999, according to the ChangeLog. GCC-2.7 is very outdated. GCC-2.95.2 is frankly not. version. Worse, creating a maintainance nightmare for almost everybody by making redhat binary incompatibly to other linux distributions, therefore That is unfortunately correct :( I do wonder what drugs whoever it was that decided to do this within RH were on :( Bug reproduction will probably become extremely difficult because we don't know when the RH GCC was forked (or do we?) and what patches have been applied to it. Essentially RH now have their `own GCC' that anyone considering fixing a bug report from an RH7 person must have on their system. Not at all ideal. -- `Ergotism is what you get if you overuse the word "therefore". Egotism on the other hand is a form of "I" strain.' --- Paul Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:50:44PM +0300, Matti Aarnio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside of that pre-processor noice I don't know if 2.96 is really Please keep in mind that there is no such definite thing as gcc-2.96. There is the redhat version (with unknown changes to the snapshot it bases on) and countless fsf snapshots of 2.96. They act similarly, but not the same, complicating any discussion about it. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Get real: RedHat owns cygnus and cygnus owns GCC so what do you complain about? It's up to them to decide which compiler is stable or which Now that's the problem. Claiming that redhat owns gcc (which is owned by the FSF) is one of the major points in this discussion. I am sure you just made a joke, but I miss the smileys... And then there is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - so wht's up with the glibc? The same, see above :( Go through the changelog and you will see that drepper is by far not the only coder. Hey, I even see @suse in there. A lot! So what's up with glibc? Did you fell for some company's marketing droids? Surely you didn't... I can understand redhat somehow. There are good reasons for them to take even CVS snaps and ship them instead of *very* outdated so called stable versions. I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Nix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Froget about the "committe" stuff...) Marc will probably agree here that this (except for the bit about RH owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of BTW, AFAIK gcc is the only large free software project that has an explicit rule that (quote): * No single organization is allowed to have 50% or more of the votes. [This includes groups of developers from the same company or a university] The cygnus/redhat merger was indeed a point where this rule had to be checked, fortunately even redhat+cygnus is well below the 50% mark. But even if it were true, it isn't good. It is up to the release manager (following the release criteria) to release GCC. It is not up to RedHat. But they can, if they want, ship an unreleased GCC. Yes, they can do whatever they are allowed by the license, of course. The question is wether it's right, or what the consequences are. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 06:06:52PM +0200, Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: owning Cygnus) is purest garbage. The whole *point* of the Steering Committee is to prevent any single interest from gaining control of BTW, AFAIK gcc is the only large free software project that has an "AFAIK" has a very low information content. Alan just informed me that the gnome project has a similar anti-takeover-rule (trying to avoid a mail flood here ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Their normal gcc is 2.96, which I'm sure you have heard 50,000 times now. RH7 also installs "kgcc" which is gcc 2.91.xx (the same gcc that comes with RH6.2). I believe if you set your CC to kgcc, you can possibly compile the kernel. However, I have not tried this yet. Has anyone else on this list tried it? - Original Message - From: "David M. Rector" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM Subject: What is up with Redhat 7.0? 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 different than the stock 2.2.16) causes my system come to a screeching halt, no messages, no errors, crashed solid. I have a Supermicro PIIIDME motherboard with a GeForce2 graphics card, adaptec 2940UW scsi and seagate UW 9 gig scsi drive. Dave Rector *:^) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Hi Martin, WHAT? Are you nuts - they pay breed for many of the core kernel developers - I think if they didn't those would actually have entierly stopped working on Linux otherwise just after finishing scool and going into the real world out there. You can't hardly call this behaviour *demanging*!!! And then there is Alan himself! Sure, and we do not have any demand for higly skilled, motivated kernel developers ? If redhat wouldn't have employed then somebody else would and maybe redhat wouldn't be in the situation of having access to their knowledge and their support when it comes to really tricky solutions. I don't think your point holds. They do not employ the developers out of pure altruism. They have a knowledgetransfer and they can use that for their support. They do earn their money with consulting. Or least to say, that is where the real money should come from. Greetings Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:36:56PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: 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. You would be wrong then. Management asked what version of gcc would be best to support, we answered, they followed our recomendation. If you want to blame someone in Red Hat for making the decision to ship a gcc snapshot, then you might as well blame me. The reasons are the following: (1) 2.95 is the least stable release that we (the fsf gcc team) have shipped in a long time. It does ok on x86, but is pathetic on the other platforms that Red Hat cares about -- especially Alpha. The late July snapshot we shipped is most definitely more stable, largely I think due to Geoff's automated regression tester bitching at people when they break the tree. (2) C++ in 2.95 is already ABI incompatible with egcs 1.1 and gcc 3.0, so clearly (to my mind anyway) it didn't matter whether we shipped 2.95 or a snapshot, we would still be incompatible with Red Hat 6 and Red Hat 8. (3) While the C++ ABI for 3.0 is not complete, the API is. That is, the snapshot we chose will be compatible with 3.0 at the source level. With the exception of "export" I understand from Jason that we are now very close to standards conformance. (4) We could either spend our QA time reviving the dead 2.95 branch, or we could spend that QA effort on mainline, helping get 3.0 stable. Someone on this thread complained that the RPM that we shipped is highly patched. Bar two (the subreg_byte patches), all of those patches are in current cvs. Since at some point procedure would not allow us to take a new snapshot, those 85 patches are a visible side-effect of the QA work that was done. Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved. Flame away. r~ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Richard Henderson wrote: Frankly, I didn't even consider C++ ABI compatibility with other Linux vendors, since I think that's a losing proposition until everyone is using gcc3. We were _already_ incompatible, since there are a mix of egcs and gcc versions involved. C++ ABI breaking: SuSE managed to break the VShop application in an entierly insane way between releases 6.1 and 6.2 - they stiupid did recompile the libstdc++ with a new compiler and didn't even bother to increment the binary version of this library At RedHat at least they know what they are changing... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:18:36PM +0200, Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C++ ABI breaking: SuSE managed to break the VShop application in an entierly insane way between releases 6.1 and 6.2 - they stiupid did recompile the libstdc++ with a new compiler and didn't even bother to increment the binary version of this library At RedHat at least they know what they are changing... Obviously redhat did and does a lot of similar braindamage, which could be called "bugs" (no version of perl on redhat cd's really worked correctly for example). Again, the choice redhat did can not be construed as being some mistake by some guy or a group of guys. It was a deliberate decision. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [...] I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( Has happened on and off with each distribution I've ever played with. The point being? -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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 different than the stock 2.2.16) causes my system come to a screeching halt, no messages, no errors, crashed solid. I have a Supermicro PIIIDME motherboard with a GeForce2 graphics card, adaptec 2940UW scsi and seagate UW 9 gig scsi drive. Please redirect this peace of total wothless information to some other list. Give some errors instead of barking. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:39:06PM -0400, Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( Has happened on and off with each distribution I've ever played with. The point being? That what you say is simply not true, so what's _your_ point in claiming this? One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, the official ones (released by the official maintainers) always were enough. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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. If you really want broken and expirimental stuff go work for M$ or so. to flame SuSE, Conectiva, and especially Mandrake as well - all of them made up of hardworking people trying to do what they think is best for Linux. I Indeed. So why does redhat so a remarkably *bad* job at the same? SuSE for example did *not* make their distribution incompatible to all others to try to tie customers to them. So everybody their own distribution. I think SuSE sucks, it's overbloated, the apps are way to old on it, and the installer sucks. But that doesn't mean I would say 'Do't use SuSE, it's bad.' I last looked at a version 2 years ago, so things have changed. Well, if redhat really tried to do this they failed miserably. OTOH, maybe the redhat people doing that were drugged, because every child could deduce that using an experimental snapshot that is has a non-fixed and changing ABI will not help binary compatibility. Let me metion the Nazi's. Now can the thread die ? Aren't you paid by redhat? ;- Let this thread die. Now. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
Well, the glibc-2.1 on redhat disks acted differently than the glibc-2.1 in the cvs repository or on the ftp servers, but that does not mean that the actual glibc code is the culprit. Again, please read what I actually wrote, not only the parts that others have quoted. Did you EVER looked at the differences ?? Looking at your statement probably not. So do so before making these kind of idiotic statements. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?t
this would be differemt, but AFAIK the redhat package management system is not able to provide for this). You have no idea what you're talking about. So let's die this thread, or at least the name-calling right now. I'll try as best as I can to keep the disucssion to the original, on-topic point only. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
I wouldn't mind, either, if this didn't mean that programs compiled on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE enviroment ?? Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats why we need the LSB work - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
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. Well, than I still have to find out why this tool build on SuSE SIG11's on Debian. A rebuild solved it. But then again, I have to do something in my spare time.. But let's quit this stupid thread. Distrib and OS wars lead to nothing. If you don't like a distrib : Don't use it. Igmar - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
"Chris McClellen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Their normal gcc is 2.96, which I'm sure you have heard 50,000 times now. RH7 also installs "kgcc" which is gcc 2.91.xx (the same gcc that comes with RH6.2). I believe if you set your CC to kgcc, you can possibly compile the kernel. However, I have not tried this yet. Has anyone else on this list tried it? On i686 (RH 6.9.5) and SPARC (RH 6.2 + selected packages from 6.9.5 sources). Works fine with Alan's 2.2.18pre kernels, at least. -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( And you say that programs developed on for example SuSE don't need a SuSE enviroment ?? 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. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 10:36:00PM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One never needed suse's or redhat's glibc to run binaries created on their platforms. Likewise one never needed their libstdc++ or their toolchain, You regularly did. Even with libc5 there were two semi incompatible sets of X libraries (with/without pthreads) and some other problems. Thats why we need the LSB work You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant facts about library incompatibilities, but the fact is that all these came from the official sources and were compatible to the official versions. Even egcs made a large effort to become gcc compatible. Why do you keep ignoring this point? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
You *keep* ignoring the point. Please, Alan, the point is that all these libraries were not forked redhat-only versions. You keep citing irrelevant The pthreads one was a forked someone version. came from the official sources and were compatible to the official versions. Even egcs made a large effort to become gcc compatible. Why do you keep ignoring this point? I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. I got bored of libc2 a while back. I prefer change - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:07:11AM +0100, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you keep ignoring this point? I don't see your point except as 'never change anything'. Hmm... there is some misunderstanding here, see: I got bored of libc2 a while back. I prefer change Now, what would you think if you developed libc2 and were about to go to libc3 and then some company took libc2 made their own libc3 which is incompatible to the libc3 that has been publicly announced some time ago, put *your* address into the bug-report address if *their* libc3, told the public nothing about the highly experimental aspect of their libc3 (that will certainly not be compatible to the "official" libc3) etc.. etc... I certainly am not "never change anything", I wouldn't have tried to patch that pgcc thingy if I were. I am against mindless forking without stating this, though, even if allowed by the license. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 05:18:22PM -0400, Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And a "deliberate decision" by a "bunch of guys" (which by some freak accident of fate just so happens includes several of the lead people on the involved software projects) can't ever be right, or even just be a honest mistake. N, it _has_ to be sabotage, planned and executed by His Evilness Himself. Now that'd an interesting new idea ;) Anyway, no, there is no conspiracy theory, just a lot of very bad actions of some company in a row that adds a a lot of extra, unneecessary work and confusion to the free software community. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: What is up with Redhat 7.0?
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:19:03AM +0200, Martin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on rehdat need redhat versions of the development toolchain / runtime environment to use them :( Ever tried to recompile SuSE apache from the src.rpm they provide? We are talking binaries here, but anyway, what you say is easy to do: nobody *forces* you to apply their patches or forces you to even use their sourcecode. Go and fetch the official apcahe, it will just run fine. THAT is OFFENDING! Not just the fact whatever who want's to be True, it is offending in some sense, but this is not specific to suse and is, while maybe worthwhile on a "bash all distributions"-list (or even here ;) is not the actual point, which is binary incompatibility because of forked versions for no benefits. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
