Distrowatch: What went wrong with Fedora Core 4

[Jim Cornette]

Michael A. Peters wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 20:41 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>*snip*
>  
>
>>>yum has never messed up my system.
>>>      
>>>
>*snip*
>  
>
Yum seems well policed in not pulling in things where deps will break 
packages. Blaming yum would be like blaming a taxidriver for the lousy 
drinks you got at the bar. Yum prevented a lot of programs from being 
updatable on my system. Of course, the program that passed the dep 
requirement might not have their requirements set high enough or was 
just an oops build which toppled from a minor error.

>>No, I don't think you are.  I *think* I'm trying to shoot the 
>>messenger.
>>
>>The real question seems to me, how did this new kernel get past 
>>testing if it won't even boot? 
>>    
>>
I got caught by the non-booting kernel update myself. The previous 
kernel did boot and I used that instead.

>> Thats now vmlinuz-2.6.12-1.1390_FC4, 
>>the matching initrd, System.map etc.  The .1-1369 seems to be ok if I 
>>don't want to run X.
>>    
>>
1390 works fine for me. One of the previous versions did not work for 
me. Of course, most of the development kernels after the 1400 version 
had booting or acpi issues.

>>And, what broke X?
>>    
>>

I had the starwars screensaver scrolling while I was working today and 
glanced at one of the fortunes. It had something to do with X. I'm sure 
that something as complicated and responsible for working with hardware 
vendors that have to do things different and secretavely has a lot to do 
with X being so suseptable to breakage.

>
>That I don't know. There are some issues with X in FC4 - such as the
>libvgahw.a gcc4 bug.
>
>  
>
I just tried out the development build and it works without resorting to 
pulling in the libvgahw.a file from an FC3 build. It worked to correct 
the blue border and the wrapping text problem that I had. Help is 
intended to be on the way.

Jim

-- 
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T after you.