[ale] RedHat 7.0

[Thompson Freeman]

Sorry to butt in so late, and I _hope_ my opinion doesn't feel like
anything associated with holy wars (or conflict of any type for that
matter).

I _think_ I've heard part of the reason RH has 5.0 and 7.0 type releases -
although please don't take any part seriously. (I seem to recall that the
3.0 release was similar also). Basically, various portions of these
releases (such as libraries or compilers) are in transition phases, and RH
elected to push the envelope with the intention of encouraging/forcing
quicker general adoption of the newer materials. I'd rather not bother
discussing the wisdom of doing so, as I have fallen on some sharp pointy
objects as a result of the choice, but I can appreciate that the choice
can be made. _Somebody_ gets to be out in front collecting arrows from all
directions, if there is to be any evolutionary change at all. I guess that
the trick is to not be in front while you are trying to get seasoned?

Oh well. Thanks to one and all for letting me rant.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Gary S. Mackay wrote:

> <two cents>
> Without starting holy wars, I agree wholeheartedly. The first linux disc given
> to me was a RedHat 5.0 cd. What a mess. I almost didn't get into linux because
> that version was such a joke. I didn't know much about unix period so when
> things didn't work, I presumed it was something I was doing wrong. After hours
> of frustration and web searching, I found out it wasn't me (most of the time)
> after all! This 7.0 version is even worse than the 5.0 joke. What a shame! I
> have divorced myself from M$ as much as possible, (work still requires
> some...) and love the whole linux concept. I only install linux at my clients
> now, unless they force me otherwise.
> 	What I'm saying is how many others were not as persistant as I was and just
> gave up? Not what the linux community needs at all.
> </two cents>
> 
> - Gary
> 
> Armsby John-G16665 wrote:
> > 
> > >From what I am reading, why would the average non power user want 7.0?  Sounds like a head ache to me.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fulton Green [mailto:ale at FultonGreen.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 5:13 AM
> > To: Eric Z. Ayers
> > Cc: Steve Nicholas; ale at ale.org
> > Subject: Re: [ale] RedHat 7.0
> > 
> > Actually, you CAN use the RH7 default compiler to sucessfully build (and
> > run!) the 2.4.0-test kernel. But you've gotta make sure everything is
> > properly upgraded in the toolchain (e.g., make sure the binutils RPM is at
> > 2.10.0.18-1 or higher).
> > 
> > FWIW, your compiler is bombing on an assembler source, specifically on
> > multi-line #define macros. I don't know if GCC invokes the GNU assembler (as)
> > at that point, but just in case, heed the binutils advice above. It also
> > wouldn't hurt to make sure the C preprocessor package is at 2.96-54, even
> > though I could have sworn I heard one of the GCC project members at the
> > recent ALS say that the preproc was now integrated into GCC.
> > 
> > Regarding the dwindling Diamond color depth: RH7 may have upgraded you
> > to XFree 4.0.1, in which case you may have to play around with the new
> > XF86Config file format to make sure that XFree has the right knowledge about
> > your video RAM and such. And don't forget to read the support docs for
> > Diamond chipsets, located on the XFree website (www.XFree.org). FWIW, I have
> > a similar problem, going from XGA 24-bit color to XGA 16-bit color between
> > Red Hat 6.2 and 7.0.
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:10:50AM -0400, Eric Z. Ayers wrote:
> > > You can compile a kernel with RH 7.0, but you have to use an older
> > > version of gcc. Look for something like: kgcc or kcc or read the RH
> > > 7.0 release notes.
> > >
> > > -ERic.
> > >
> > > Stephen F Nicholas writes:
> > >  > Ok, Ok,
> > >  > I know the general consensus is NOT to load RH 7.0.  I went to ALS and
> > >  > purchased 7.0.  gnome is getting REALLY memory hungry video wise.  fvwm
> > >  > worked in 32 bit mode just fine with my Diamond 4 mb card under 5.2.  6.1
> > >  > went down to 24 bit color, and 7.0 went down to 16 bit color.
> > >  >
> > >  > I can't compile kernel 2.2.16 from RH's cd.  It bombs real fast.  Since I
> > >  > d/l'd 2.2.17 I don't have the error messages from 2.2.16.  HOWEVER, I DO
> > >  > have the error messages from kernel 2.2.17 downloaded from kernel.org.  I
> > >  > did a make dep, make clean ok.  make bzImage blew with the following error
> > >  > message:
> > >  >
> > >  > cc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.2.17/include -D__ASSEMBLY__
> > >  > -traditional -c checksum.S -o checksum.o
> > >  > checksum.S:231: badly punctuated parameter list in #define
> > >  > checksum.S:237: badly punctuated parameter list in #define
> > >  > make[2]: *** [checksum.o] Error 1
> > >  > make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.17/arch/i386/lib'
> > >  > make[1]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
> > >  > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.17/arch/i386/lib'
> > >  > make: *** [_dir_arch/i386/lib] Error 2
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > I saw a previous message saying to use kgcc instead of gcc.  I tried both,
> > >  > to no avail.  Suggestions??  I'm not a programmer, but I try and do my
> > >  > research.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
> 

-- 
===========================================
The harder I work, the luckier I get.
                    Lee Iacocca
===========================================
Thompson Freeman          tfreeman at intel.digichem.net

--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.