On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Bill Campbell wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:20:29PM -0500, Net Llama! wrote: > ... > >> AFAIK, they don't follow the same stable/unstable convention that the > >> kernel follows, so 2.3.1 is s'posed to be the latest stable release. > > > >ahhh...ok, thanks. so, has anyone upgraded a box from a 2.2.x version to > >a 2.3.x version and lived to tell the tale? is the procedure for building > >2.3.x the same as the one for 2.2.x? > > IHMO, changing glibc is just asking for trouble since almost everything on > the system depends on it. Only slightly less dangerous is updating the > Berkeley database libraries.
not neccesarily. i've built & upgraded newer 2.2.x versions of glibc before, and survived without a scratch. i've also heard nighmare stories of people trashing their systems by performing the upgrade incorrectly. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
