On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 17:00 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 19:47 -0400, G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > > That would be nice except for one thing, these distributions check the > > bios for newness and when it is not sufficiently new installation of > > these becomes a big problem. > > Care to elaborate on this? I haven't seen any anaconda code that looks > for bios dates or anything like that. I've put CentOS4 on some pretty > old hardware, and when you're just running servers you can run a pretty > light CentOS4 (RHEL4). Centos would not install. Rh9 even threw an error during install although it does have a module that compensates. > > > On the other hand, RH7.3 is stable but does > > need to support more modern apps. I would encourage the powers that be > > at Fedora Legacy to consider keeping this one release as current as > > possible as it is one of the few that can work on old hardware which > > is > > likely found in basements and the third world. > > This is WAY beyond the scope of Fedora Legacy. What you also fail to > realize is that by keeping applications current, you basically get to > the point that CentOS4 or FC3/4 is, and need the same system > requirements to run it. RHL7.3 runs on old hardware because it is old > software. If we make it new software, guess what happens.... > I was not complaining. What I am doing is asking if the the project could expand a little for at least the 7.3 release. Like adding a community contribution repository so those of us who want to take the time to prepare packages that are outside the main scope so 7.3 can have a much longer lifetime. For example, host the isos for 7.3 and make a contrib directory as well. For those who can run RH9 and FC the current situation is ideal. Is this a possibility? -- G. Roderick Singleton <gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxx> PATH tech -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
