[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
>
[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
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,
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,
> "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
> "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
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
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
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was the discussion wether using a unpublished non existent compiler and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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
"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
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
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
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
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 Redha
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
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.
--
-==- |
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
> 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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
"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.
>
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
>
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> > 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
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
> 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
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
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
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:
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.
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
nyone 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 comp
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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 ##
> 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.
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
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
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
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 ##
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
nyone 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 o
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
