On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Anne POSSOZ wrote:
> > To be able to run some (old) applications on redhat 7.0
> > (for axample matlab) the libc-5 support is still needed.
> >
> > I just added the RH 6.2 libc-5.3.12-31.i386.rpm and
> > ld.so-1.9.5-13.i386.rpm packa
> The support for old stuff has to be dropped at some point; usually extra
I think this is more than a bit early. Not everyone wants to recompile
programs that work perfectly well as they are.
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hopefully this will also encourage Wolfram Research to make a newer
> version of Matlab available too..
Minor correction: Wolfram Research develops _Mathematica_ not
Matlab. But the point still stands :-)
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of dif
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:39:31PM +0200, Anne POSSOZ wrote:
> Question: apparently there is no incompatibility with these
> rpms so why are they not provided together with redhat 7?
>
> And it seems to fully solve the problem.
In the 6.2 RELEASE-NOTES:
Deprecated features and packages -- T
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Anne POSSOZ wrote:
> Question: apparently there is no incompatibility with these
> rpms so why are they not provided together with redhat 7?
Because we can't keep compatibility with obsolete stuff forever.
If we wanted to remain compatible with any obsolete stuff we ever
incl
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Anne POSSOZ wrote:
> To be able to run some (old) applications on redhat 7.0
> (for axample matlab) the libc-5 support is still needed.
>
> I just added the RH 6.2 libc-5.3.12-31.i386.rpm and
> ld.so-1.9.5-13.i386.rpm packages on the PC.
>
> Question: apparently there is no
To be able to run some (old) applications on redhat 7.0
(for axample matlab) the libc-5 support is still needed.
I just added the RH 6.2 libc-5.3.12-31.i386.rpm and
ld.so-1.9.5-13.i386.rpm packages on the PC.
Question: apparently there is no incompatibility with these
rpms so why are they not
