On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 14:41, William Hooper wrote: > The Matt said: > > On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 13:45, William Hooper wrote: > >> Rick Johnson said: > >> > Michael St. Laurent wrote: > >> >> I just got an end-of-life notification for an old system.[snip] > >> > >> If you have a basic subscription to RHN you get an announcement also. > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Red Hat 9.0? What happened to 8.1? > >> > >> Binary compatibility. RH always goes to x.0 when they don't preserve > >> binary compatibility. Now you know why some people (like me) think it > >> was silly to be calling it RH 8.1 beta in the newsgroups. > > > > Wait, binary broke between 8.0 and Phoebe? I thought Phoebe used gcc > > 3.2 and glibc 2.3, or did I not look close enough? (I'm not on my > > Phoebe=home machine at the moment.) > > > > Are they going to go to gcc 3.3 or 3.4, then? > > I was thinking more along the lines of the Native POSIX Thread Library > (NPTL) that seemed to break a lot of things (binary wise). As an example, > you can't run the Phoebe httpd binary on 8.0.
Ahh. Thanks to all who replied. I guess I never ran into a binary where this happened. Thus, I never checked the RELEASE-NOTES for a reason why. -- "And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway? I mean, all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick The Matt -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
