[EmperorLinux-os-RedHat] do not use : GLIBC update packages ( from Red Hat Network)

[Net Llama!]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Collins Richey wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:05:05 -0500 Kurt Wall <kwall at kurtwerks.com> wrote:
>
> > Consuming 0.8K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
> > > On 11/13/03 17:04, dep wrote:
> > >
> > > >quoth Kurt Wall:
> > > >| Consuming 2.3K bytes, Net Llama! blathered:
> > > >| > I can vouch for this.  My RH9 box is trashed as a result.
> > > >|
> > > >| [badly borken glibc]
> > > >|
> > > >| Whoops!
> > > >
> > > >leave it to redhat. what was it last time? gcc-2.7.6 or something?
> > >
> > > What last time?  Let's not play revisionist historians, ok?
> >
> > Indeed. GCC 2.96; glibc 2.0.7; NPTL; problems running RPM on kernel
> > 2.5. Shall I continue?
> >
>
> I'm curious.  Until last year I had avoided RH like the plague.  Were these
> glitches only for desktop users, or did they propagate all the fubars to their
> server releases as well?

Up until recently, Redhat didn't have a distinct server release.  It was
the numbered releases, and that was all.  Ironicly, the Advanced Server
and Enterprise Server product line has been completely uneffected by this
mess, so Redhat seems to be capable of delivering sane, stable packages
when they find it justifiable.

gcc-2.96 from RH-7.0 is the only package that I've run into on Redhat
(long ago) that had some severe problems.  NPTL was contraversial, however
it certainly wasn't unstable, or broken.  Redhat never released a 2.5.x
kernel, so anyone having problems with RPM on that kernel has
self-inflicted wounds that are not redhat's fault.  I'm not at all
familiar with a glibc-2.0.7 issue, primarily because that had to have
occured before i had started using Linux back in late 1998.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo		     http://netllama.ipfox.com