Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On the download pages, I noted that the same package should be used for > both FC2 and RHEL3. Is this correct? It was always my assumption that > RHL8, RHL9 and FC1 used the same packages as RHEL3, while FC2 and FC3 > were the same as RHEL4. > > As such, should it not be that the FC3/RHEL4 version is also what should > be downloaded for FC2? And then the RHEL3 would also be for FC1, not > FC2? > > About the only place where FC2 differs from FC3/RHEL4 seems to be GCC > (3.3 for the former instead of 3.4 like the latter two). FC1 actually > ships the same version as FC2, and not the same as FC1/RHEL3 (3.3 for > the former instead of 3.2 like the latter two). > > So I'm just curious if the download recommendation is correct for FC2? > > -- Bryan > > P.S. I've been tracking Kernel, C and GLibC (among other, core ABI > packages) on Red Hat releases over the years. I recently posted a > simplified history table through FC5 on my blog here: > http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/05/fedora-red-hat-abi-compatibility.html > These were driven by what we QA'd. We tested on RHEL3 and RHEL4 then said they would work on the similar Fedora package (after some brief smoke testing). Since we didn't test on FC2 we weren't going to claim compatibility. Plus, there are other things beyond glibc and the compiler that can break, such as Apache for the admin serve, java support, etc. I think all the versions you mention at NPTL so at least we don't have to consider LinuxThreads compatibility :-) If you want to test on FC2 and let us know how it works we can update the site with that information. regards rob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3178 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20060619/1d7f3a56/attachment.bin
