[lkml]   [1998]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Upgrading to a test kernel
    22-May-98 04:47 you wrote:
    > > -> Ncpfs ncpfs-2.0.11-3 2.2.0
    > Don't know about that one. ;( (there is one in contrib)
    Unfortunatelly 2.2.0 will work with 2.1.x if coupiled when 2.1.x installed and
    will work with 2.0.x if compiled when 2.0.x installed :-( The same was with
    smbfs (new versions are in latest samba).

    > > -> Pcmcia-cs pcmcia-cs-2.9.12-4 3.0.1
    > Not using, don't know. (contrib has it)
    You must recompile pcmcia-cs with new kernel (do not remove old stuff! old
    stuff will be used with 2.0.x, new will be installed in separate directory
    and used with 2.1.x).

    > > All of the packages with arrows next to them look like they need to have
    > > newer versions installed. If I install the newer version, will it not
    > > allow my existing 2.0.34 kernel to work properly? Is there a way to have
    > > both kernels working on the system, without having to repartition the
    > > drive?
    Yes and no. Only few new packages could not work with 2.0.x -- ncpfs & smbfs
    AFAIK. pcmcia-cs also could not be used with new kernel, but pcmcia-cs is
    installed in /lib/modules/{kernel-version} directory anyway, so you could
    install more then one version (unfortunatelly not with RPM). I am not know
    how important is ncpfs for you (problem with smbfs could be solved with
    filenames renaming, but in ncpfs there a .so librarry).

    > Both should work just fine, they did for me, (I've haven't used the 2.0.x
    > series for a while, but I did and had no problems.
    > Also, I've heard folks talking about gcc, pgcc and egcs. I'm
    > > assuming that these are all C compilers, but what's up with them? I
    > > thought gcc was the compiler that we currently use. Is there a movement
    > > underway to switch to a new standard C compiler for Linux?
    > >
    > I'll pass on that one, I stay confused on a lot of those conversations
    > myself.
    Ok. gcc 2.8.x is new version of gcc, egcs is "bazaar style gcc" (really egcs
    RELEASES has less bugs then gcc 2.8.x, but there are a lot of users who use
    snapshots (or even downloaded egcs from CVS) and still does not bother herself
    with sending bug reports to egcs mailing lists, not to kernel mailing list).
    pgcc is egcs with additional optimization for Pentium & PentiumPro/PentiumII.
    I am personally using pgcc for all compilations, including, of course, kernel
    compilations. But for 2.0.x you MUST use gcc ... I hope that egcs will
    be sometimes "standard" compiler for Linux (RedHat 5.1 will include egcs 1.0.3
    as option) but for now there are quite a few problems with compilation of some
    programs (KDE, kernel, etc.) with egcs.... Most of them are bugs in kernel,
    KDE, etc. sources, but few are really hidden egcs problems :-((

    > I would just try upgrading all the packages(one at a time, or just go
    > for the whole ball of wax), and see if anything breaks,
    > I don't believe it will.
    It will :-(( ncpfs and smbfs does not have [AFAIK] versions BINARY compatible
    with both 2.0.x & 2.1.x :-((

    > I think you should be able to join the fray, quite easily with
    > RedHat 5.0, without a lot of problems, and stay totally with RPMs.
    I am not checked ncpfs rpm from contrib...

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.024 / U:7.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site