On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 10:31, Thomas Smith wrote: > Part of what makes a good distribution isn't just how well it works when > installed /from scratch/, as it were, but also how it upgrades from one > version to another. I'm running several RH 7.2 servers and decided to > upgrade one of my test systems (also RH 7.2) to RH 9. Many things broke. > Some things that worked perfectly before quit working--Apache-FP, many > Perl apps, the UTF-8 encoding mucked up my SSH clients (distored > pstrees, watch, etc), and some problems I'm still finding. And all this > happened without warning. > I'm one of those proponents of the Fedora concept. That said, I have considerable concerns associated with NPTL. Each kernel du jour has been more broken than its predecessor. RedHat compilations are accomplished by brute force by compiling module code with dependency failures inline that cannot be compiled as modules. It's the same faulty code but they are suppressing the error condition. The number of modules with serious errors is astonishing. Moreover, compilations tend to fail on an error in "sched.c" for "active_load_balance" regardless of options. I don't like the fact that NPTL requires ACPI which bloats the kernel with code that I don't need or want on some machines.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
