fp5/Linux 2.6 -- anyone got it running?

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 04:49:06PM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
> Confusious (Kenneth Brody) say:
> > As I recall, there was a change to the Linux kernel or the libraries
> > along the way which broke compatibility with statically-linked
> > binaries.  (The problem, as I recall, was that the static libraries
> > called dynamic libraries, and they broke the compatibility.  This is
> > one of the problems that statically linking is supposed to avoid.)
> 
> It's a glibc-ism that this is the case.  I think the major library in fP that
> was at issue was nsswitch being called dynamically from inside a statically
> linked fP binary.
> 
> > The Linux version was changed, I believe at 5.0.09, to work around this.
> 
> 5.0.10 started with the linux dynamic linked versions, according to my
> memory.
> 
> > In short, you are correct that 5.0.08 simply won't run there due to
> > non-backward-compatibility in the Linux distrib.
> 
> And if you update, make sure you install libtermcap, as it won't have been
> installed by default, and fP >= 5.0.10 won't run without it.

You were the two people I wanted answers from; thanks. 

> <mini_grumble>
> Meanwhile, someone told me this week that SuSE 9.3 is coming out soon.

I just saw something about that as well...

> That's absurd, IMHO.  They just got 9.2 to about the 6 month mark where
> I actually would trust it as a distribution--save everything but the
> kernel, which I -still- won't really trust until it hits an official
> 2.6.18.  By the time they get one to the point you're willing to put it
> into production, they're ready to release the next one.  
> 
> This is by no means a new trend, and RH did much the same thing, as did
> others.  But I still maintain the distribution release interval is 1/3 the
> size it should be, or smaller--especially as the mean time between kernel
> releases has dropped from once or twice a week seven years or so ago to
> the point of once every month or three today.  There's nowhere near enough
> value added (even to subsidiary packages) between releases to justify what
> they're doing--which could just as easily be handled with proper updates.
> 
> Vendors really need to find a middle-ground between what M$ and SCO do, and
> what the linux vendors currently do.
> </mini_grumble>

Well, FWIW, precisely what annoys you is what RH *does not* do in it's
Enterprise release trains.  For precisely that reason.  That's almost
exactly *why* they increased the release frequency on the non-RHEL
distros: to force people for whom it would be a problem to shell every
year.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

      If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator.  Or two.  --me