11:49 p.m.
Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
> > CVSup is VERY nice. Really. I'll have to see if I can help Steve
> > get it running.
>
> If you wish to do this, I'll send you the patches I made to get it to
> compile and link (but not run :-() with glibc-2.0.7.
Please.
O.K.
> > [ Bleah. Can anyone recommend a good, cheap Linux? ]
Which variant are you using?
This won't be an option. I use Steve/Linux, essentially built from
scratch. Once upon a time, it was Slackware 2.2/a.out. The main
differences between it and RedHat is that everything is built with
pgcc/egcs, it is dual libc5/libc6 and I'm using the close to stable
2.1 kernel series. Only the latter should make any difference and
it's easy to upgrade kernels.
I'd personally recommend RedHat 5.1 and I do have access to a RedHat
5.1 box.
12:23 a.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
SL Baur writes:
I'd personally recommend RedHat 5.1 and I do have access to a RedHat
5.1 box.
There are a lot of required up-grades in graphics rpms; rpm is
broken in terms of installing things from downloads to local
directories. I believe there is a CD-ROM somewhere of the upgrades
(including security upgrades and a new kernel).
--
Rebecca Ore
3:16 a.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore(a)op.net> wrote:
SL Baur writes:
>
> I'd personally recommend RedHat 5.1 and I do have access to a RedHat
> 5.1 box.
>
There are a lot of required up-grades in graphics rpms; rpm is
broken in terms of installing things from downloads to local
directories. I believe there is a CD-ROM somewhere of the upgrades
(including security upgrades and a new kernel).
Blarg. Is the June 1998 RedHat 5.1 CDROM OK? If not, are there
any Linux distributions that I should avoid (because of compatibility
with slackware/red hat, etc.)? I just want to do a minimal Linux
install (a basic SW development system with X11), without having to
worry about grabbing this patch and that patch, etc.. I also have no
idea as to the implications of libc5 vs libc6.
--
Darryl Okahata
darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
5:37 a.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
Darryl Okahata writes:
Blarg. Is the June 1998 RedHat 5.1 CDROM OK? If not, are
there
any Linux distributions that I should avoid (because of compatibility
with slackware/red hat, etc.)? I just want to do a minimal Linux
install (a basic SW development system with X11), without having to
worry about grabbing this patch and that patch, etc.. I also have no
idea as to the implications of libc5 vs libc6.
Yes.
Redhat is probably the easiest/safest to install. You can be fairly
sure it will run right out of the box. I am running a fairly stock 5.1
on both my PC and SPARC machines and am VERY happy to be away from
NT. (Still have to use it at work though :-(
If you are familiar with any Unix and understand the partitioning, the
rest is a breeze.
Sean
--
Sean MacLennan Just crank that volume to the point of pain.
Ottawa, Canada Why waste good music on a brain?
http://www.storm.ca/~seanm (Spinal Tap)
4:42 p.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:16:59 -0700
From: Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com>
Blarg. Is the June 1998 RedHat 5.1 CDROM OK?
Should be.
Really, for your needs, it sounds like any distribution should be
fine. Just make sure that when you're all done, you can run file(1)
on your resulting executable(s) and see that everything is statically
linked. Your stuff should be very compatible with everyone. If you
don't link statically, you're bound to find someone who can't run your
results or who gets odd behavior due to some random library
incompatibility that you'll probably never track down.
Really, damn near every compatibility probably goes away with static
linking.
Rick
4:37 p.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
From: Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore(a)op.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:23:29 -0400 (EDT)
rpm is broken in terms of installing things from downloads to
local directories.
This is actually the thing I dislike most about RedHat. I still use
the /usr/misc/ model developed at CMU SCS for distributed support of
locally installed software and hate anything that tries to be too
smart about installation location, etc.
Rick
4:33 p.m.
New subject: cvs mirroring
From: SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
Date: 17 Oct 1998 15:49:23 -0700
This won't be an option. I use Steve/Linux, essentially built from
scratch. Once upon a time, it was Slackware 2.2/a.out. The main
differences between it and RedHat is that everything is built with
pgcc/egcs, it is dual libc5/libc6 and I'm using the close to stable
2.1 kernel series. Only the latter should make any difference and
it's easy to upgrade kernels.
I'd personally recommend RedHat 5.1 and I do have access to a RedHat
5.1 box.
For what it's worth, starting with Slackware 3.5 (Linux 2.0.34), egcs
is the default compiler.
I'd personally recommend RedHat 5.1 and I do have access to a RedHat
5.1 box.
Probably a good recommendation. Although I personally don't like some
of RedHat's differences, it seems to have a large install base and you
can probably get better support, assuming you buy the shrinkwrap box.
Rick
9477
days inactive
9478
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Darryl Okahata -
Rebecca Ore -
Rick Campbell -
Sean MacLennan -
SL Baur