> -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Messmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rick Johnson wrote: > > > What happened to 8.1? > > > Have you been running the beta? There's a whole LOT of third party > software that ran fine of 8.0, but not on the Phoebe beta > releases. It > seems to be mostly related to the NPTL changes in the kernel > and glibc, > and probably isn't something that can be resolved. > > If binary compatibility isn't possible, then Red Hat is faced with > either the choice to delay significant improvements for another full > year, or put out a new major release, which does not promise total > binary compatibility with Red Hat Linux 8. > > Seems to me like a sensible choice.
This is what I've been thinking since I got the email yesterday, too... that something in the RH9 release is incompatible at the binary level with RH8.0. Since that is the traditional hallmark of what version number is given to a release, if glibc is no longer compatible, or the gcc compiler no longer produces binary compatible code, Redhat by their own "rules" HAS to upgrade the major number. Oh, and for those crying about how it broke tradition of having a X.0, X.1, X.2, X.3 release... 7.3 was the first .3 release, IIRC, and I was surprised when I saw a .3 release and not 8.0 then. At the time, I just thought that MAYBE the code was starting to become more stable, and less likely to change (updates, improvements, etc., sure, but the BIG changes were slowing down, or so I thought). I guess I was premature. :( Of course, isn't this the first time that Redhat has ever announced a definite day for release more than a day or so ahead of time? That's a more interesting development from the business side, IMO, as it's part of becoming a "mature" software company to have public release dates (for whatever their worth). In the past Redhat has just said "We'll release it when we decide to." Bill Ward -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
