[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: No Distribution is 2.0.0 Current
Justin Dossey wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, hab wrote:
> > the kernel is the root of all evil.
> -- Hubert Bahr
> Beautiful! Can I add that to the fortune database?
> I have to admit that I didn't shed many tears over the fact that my
> compilations of various utilities are spread across about 140 different
> kernel versions... honestly, it doesn't matter unless an include or
> something changed, in which case I had to recompile it anyway.
> The only reason the whole distribution would have to be compiled under
> 2.0.0 would be if every file in the kernel source changed. As you surely
> know, this is not the case, and as you surely can deduct, it is therefore
> unnecessary to recompile every program in the system.
> Justin Dossey
> This fortune is false.

Actually I feel that all programs should be updated periodically. At
least every major revision. I am not talking 1.2, 1.4, plus patch
levels. but 1.0.x 2.0.x 3.0.x. I am not saying programs will not work
and an individual user doesn't need to do it but the user should not
expect help to fix things if they are not reasonably current. To the
major revision. If your programs are compiled against so many kernels
you must have a.out versions. Why would you want both for other than a
transition period. I frankly feel configuration management is extremely
inmportant and no you don't change for the sake of change but you don't
exhaborate a situation by having an untrackable system. Revising the
baseline periodically(in this case about 2.5 year period) makes the job
alot easier.
Commercial products force this more often.

Hubert Bahr

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.086 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site