[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora and the System Administrator -- Red Hat v. SuSE it is not ...



Quoting "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm redhat com>:
> Well, some just won't have all the dependencies you need to build in
> isolation.

And I understand that.**

> Trying to build packages that depend on GNOME 2.4 on RHEL3 WS isn't
> going to work.

And I understand that, based on your first statement.**

[ **NOTE:  Is there any overriding reason RHEL is making the "jump" from 2.1 to 
3.0?  Are major kernel changes, like NPTL, going into the kernel?  I'm just 
curious.  I'm kinda wondering why this is on "2.2" since RHEL hasn't been 
around for that many versions yet. ]

> And it's possible that over time, changes such as new RPM macros might
> be added that require some changes to build on RHEL3.

Er, um, that might start causing some issues.  I would at least like to see 
some consistency in the package manager itself.

This is probably an area where Red Hat's internal developers should try 
to "advise" on.  Again, it's in Red Hat's own best interest to do so, to keep 
people buying their RHEL products.

> That said, I don't see us intentionally breaking compilation of
> Fedora Core packages on RHEL just to break them -- that would not
> help us either...

And I would never assume such.

I'm looking for, more or less, the ability to add basic applications from 
Fedora to RHEL.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.  mailto:b j smith ieee org  http://thebs.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no greater ignorance than the popular American environ-
mental movement, which focuses on the most useless details.  Be it
recycling the world's most renewable resource or refusal to use
proven CFC insulation on launch vehicles, no lives will be spared
in the further pursuit of, ironically, harming the environment.




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]