On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:53:29 +0300
Juhana Sadeharju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From:Nick D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Debian is, once you get used to it, probably the best OS in the world!
> [ ... ]
> >Yeah, the only problem is the 'stable' release is always way too old.
>
> I have ha
>From: Nick D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Debian is, once you get used to it, probably the best OS in the world!
[ ... ]
>Yeah, the only problem is the 'stable' release is always way too old.
I have had major problems with Debian:
-Installer started installing from the network, even I had told
tha
Hi,
Since I have yet to try Debian, I might change my religion also, if I do :-)
For now I'm quite content with Mandrakes current offers, very slick, VERY
uptodate. Not quite bugfree, but I've been with them for a while and know my way
around.
The latest releases (8.1 and 8.2) have also been
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:24:06 +0200
Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Dave Phillips hat gesagt: // Dave Phillips wrote:
>
> > OTOH, (and as you say, to be fair), MusE apparently does now compile
> > under 2.96 so I'm wondering whether the path of least resistance is to
> > s
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:28:59 +0200
J Nettingsmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Conder wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does the fault really lie with RedHat? Or does it lie with Linux
> > audio application projects that don't supply RedHat packages? Why don't
> > programmers at least test thei
Kevin Conder wrote:
>
>
> Does the fault really lie with RedHat? Or does it lie with Linux
> audio application projects that don't supply RedHat packages? Why don't
> programmers at least test their applications on different distros?
because programmers should spend their time programmi
Kevin Conder hat gesagt: // Kevin Conder wrote:
> Does the fault really lie with RedHat? Or does it lie with Linux
> audio application projects that don't supply RedHat packages? Why don't
> programmers at least test their applications on different distros?
Ah, come on. They should code, no
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Dave Phillips wrote:
> rm wrote:
> > but to be fair, i don't think redhat figured in to the issues you were
> > having one way or another. :D
>
> Well, yes and no. My troubles began when RH's 2.96 compiler gave me fits
> over compiling MusE (briefly: it was impossible) so I d
Hi Dave,
Dave Phillips hat gesagt: // Dave Phillips wrote:
> OTOH, (and as you say, to be fair), MusE apparently does now compile
> under 2.96 so I'm wondering whether the path of least resistance is to
> simply reinstall RH 7.2 on this machine and plan on a Debian install to
> a new disk.
Insta
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:55:32AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Well, yes and no. My troubles began when RH's 2.96 compiler gave me fits
> over compiling MusE (briefly: it was impossible) so I downgraded to an
> official GCC 2.95.3.
> [...]
> OTOH, (and as you say, to be fair), MusE apparently d
On Sunday 14 April 2002 10:55 am, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Well, yes and no. My troubles began when RH's 2.96 compiler gave me fits
> over compiling MusE (briefly: it was impossible)
As a very many programs have no problems with the Red Hat pre-gcc3 that is
2.96, I would have to say that it is a
rm wrote:
> now, it doesn't terribly matter to me what distribution you use,
> but to be fair, i don't think redhat figured in to the issues you were
> having one way or another. :D
Well, yes and no. My troubles began when RH's 2.96 compiler gave me fits
over compiling MusE (briefly: it was impo
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 03:05:09PM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> new disk and just install a new distro. That will be this week's new fun
> thing to do, and I can guarantee the next distro will not be Red Hat.
now, it doesn't terribly matter to me what distribution you use [1],
but to be fair, i
I have not tried it yet, so take this with a grain , but http://www.gentoo.org/
sounds like an interesting idea.
Its a source based distribution that downloads all of the newest versions of
_everything_, and
compiles it on your system. It takes a while to set up , but you get exactly what you
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 03:05:09PM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Ja, a little more research on Google leads me to the same conclusion.
> Looks like I'm in for a re-install... or maybe it's time to purchase a
> new disk and just install a new distro. That will be this week's new fun
> thing to do,
Tim Goetze wrote:
> my guess is that all binaries that redhat (and possibly you) compiled
> to link dynamically against libc will refuse to work after that swap
> since they'll expect the object format to be 2.96's.
>
> if /sbin/init is among those programs (and on this debian system it
> is) th
Dave Phillips wrote:
>That's starting to look like my best option. However, I did decide to
>build libc myself: I acquired sources from GNU and had no troubles
>building a new libc.so.6 under GC 2.95.3. However, the existing
>documentation on installation over existing systems is a bit confusing
Greetings:
Thanks to all who responded to my original query. I've been led to some
interesting points, and I promise I'll never screw up my system this
badly ever again...uhh, well, I think I won't...
Tim Goetze wrote:
> debian, the sooner the better. :)
That's starting to look like my best op
18 matches
Mail list logo
