On 12 Mar 98 at 20:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 98 18:54:35 -0500, "Scott Drake" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:07:14 -0500, Adoram Rogel wrote:
> >
> >>Scott Drake wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So what you are saying Mike is that anyone who purchased RH 5.0 and
> >needs
> >>> to compile libc5 programs WASTED their Hard Earned Money on it since
> >RH
> >>> 5.0 will not compile libc5 programs?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well, the truth is that I do feel that I wasted the $50, and I am
> >>disappointed.
> >>I should have bought the 4.2 distribution, if at all (I have 4.1).
> >
> >I too am disappointed that after 4 months this problem still hasn't been
> >addressed, so much for Quality Control. But just like Mirco$oft, they have our
> >money now so screw us :(
>
> That is just plain wrong! The whole point is libc5 is dead. We are not
> going to support it any longer. At some point in time, ALL linux dists will
> either be based on glibc or be done. We are supporting 4.2 for another 2
> years or so, so if you need to build libc5 apps, the best thing to do is run
> a 4.2 system.
>
> You can set link paths to create libc5 apps on 5.0, but I don't know how to
> do it and I suspect it will be a major problem to set up. I would recommend
> against doing it as it is bound to cause other problems.
>
> >>What are the differences between 4.1 and 4.2 ?
> >
> >I really don't know, I started with 4.2 and now have a BAD taste in my mouth
> >over 5.0 and considering changing to someone else's build entirely now :(
>
> Well, for the time being, only Debian has a glibc based dist (their beta
> 2.0). By the end of the year, I suspect the other major dists will also be
> glibc based, so you will be right back in the boat you are now, it will just
> be delayed for a short period of time.
>
> Anyway, 4.1 -> 4.2 was a series of bug/security fixes. I must also mention
> that anyone who is either going to install 4.2 or is currently running it,
> please check the errata and incorporate all of the security fixes that are
> posted there. There have been major security issues that have been
> addressed since 4.2 was released.
>
> Mike
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike
> Wangsmo, QA Manager Red Hat Software, Inc.
>
> "If you hit the ball hard enough, you never have to run!" --Mike Piazza
Mike Wangsmo,
I just want to say that I *do not* share this guy's views on Red Hat.
The fact that I am disappointed with *this* experience with RH5 is because of
a specific problem that I have, and that I need my production network to keep
on going with upgrading all the machines to glibc because of one machine.
My entire network runs RH3.03, 4.1 and Slackware and is based on libc5.
As much as I agree with the move to glibc, I need a gradual path, so that my
operation will continue without a beep.
Upgrading one machine at a time is the way for us.
I did enjoy the improved install, although it seems you did not check it
enough, it has some bugs:
* The disk druid did not set the bootable flag for my root partition, so when
it finished the installation and tried to reboot, the machine didn't boot.
I had to use a rescue disk and fix it with fdisk.
The disk druid, in general, needs some work, it refused to creat partitions
even though I had enough space, and I had to delete and recreate partitions
in order to get over this bug.
* If you run out of disk space while installing packages it does not how to
handle it - should be easy to detect .
* Upgrading portmap (the rpm on your web site) removes all the symlinks in
/etc/rc.d/rcX.d/...
The bottom line, I appreciate RH, and will continue to use RH dists.
I can also criticize what I don't like.
Thanks, Adoram Rogel
----------------------------------------------------
Adoram Rogel Work:(518) 374-5147
OpenSource Inc. Fax:(518) 374-7760
1740 Union st., #1 Home:(518) 374-9241
Niskayuna, N.Y. 12309 email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
