On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:52:52AM +0530, Subhro wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade > > my non-production machines to 5.3 > > Nice idea > > once it is released, however I'd like > > the production servers to lag behind once I make sure everything is > > working right. > > If everything is not working right, then 5.3 wouldnever be tagged > STABLE. This is not Windows.
5.3 will have bugs even when tagged -stable. I can guarantee that once 5.3 is released and people start using it more widely there will be new problems being reported that haven't been discovered yet. > 4.10-R uses gcc 2.95 and 5.3 uses gcc 3.4. The binaries compiled with > the later are not backward compatble. You do realise that you can install gcc 3.4 on a 4.x machine and run the binaries compiled with it? For C++ the ABI has changed a couple of times betwenn gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.4, but for C everything should work fine, as long as you link against the right libraries. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
