 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For those in the UK:
ftp://mirror.uklinux.net/.kernel/kernel/v2.4/
And for everyone else it's:
http://www.kernel.org/
This means a kernel that will build with GCC 3.0, and so the
whole system will be a bit faster, plus pov may see some speed
increases running on top of this faster kernel.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
11:36pm up 3 days, 21:29, 2 users, load average: 1.26, 1.15, 1.05
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And I think everyone interest already knows...
Steve wrote:
>
> This means a kernel that will build with GCC 3.0, and so the
> whole system will be a bit faster, plus pov may see some speed
> increases running on top of this faster kernel.
I've heard some horror stories about compiling kernel 2.4.6
with gcc 3.0.0.0.0. Why can't people wait for stable, proven
versions?
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B45805F.B25AD44A@sycomore.fr> , Adrien Beau
<adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote:
> I've heard some horror stories about compiling kernel 2.4.6
> with gcc 3.0.0.0.0. Why can't people wait for stable, proven
> versions?
If it isn't stable and released than it is called alpha or beta, not final.
GCC 3.0 is final, so it is stable. If it is not, then it is from M$ ;-)
Alternatively, it is just incompetence of the authors - their own list for
testing included the Linux kernel...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:09:51 +0200, Adrien Beau wrote:
>And I think everyone interest already knows...
>
It only appeared on the mirror here yesterday evening.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
7:05pm up 4 days, 16:59, 2 users, load average: 1.06, 1.07, 1.02
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> In article <3B45805F.B25AD44A@sycomore.fr> , Adrien Beau
> <adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote:
>
> > I've heard some horror stories about compiling kernel 2.4.6
> > with gcc 3.0.0.0.0. Why can't people wait for stable, proven
> > versions?
>
> If it isn't stable and released than it is called alpha or beta, not final.
> GCC 3.0 is final, so it is stable. If it is not, then it is from M$ ;-)
> Alternatively, it is just incompetence of the authors - their own list for
> testing included the Linux kernel...
Well, I've done it just some days ago, and the only ugly thing is that
I can't write to the windows partition (it crashes and locks the
device). Not a big problem, having samba on the server to share data...
perhaps one of these days I will seek for solution.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 20:22:30 +0200, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>If it isn't stable and released than it is called alpha or beta, not final.
>GCC 3.0 is final, so it is stable.
I wouldn't bet my life on it. It wasn't able to compile libc 2.2.1.
More precisely, it compiled, installed it and it messed up the nis
configuration, successfully locking me out of the system. Good I had a
console open so I could patch and recompile it. Whew!
>If it is not, then it is from M$ ;-)
Not only. I've seen many many programs being released full of bugs.
Just go to TUCOWS or Download.com or... for a listing ;-)
>Alternatively, it is just incompetence of the authors - their own list for
>testing included the Linux kernel...
There must be a reason why Slackware 8.0 comes with gcc 2.95.3 and
kernel 2.2.19 . Kernel 2.4.x won't compile with gcc 2.97.x . Perhaps
it would with gcc 3.0, but Slack was probably built before the libio
patch was released and I guess they just couldn't compile anything
with gcc 3.0 and left it out. It's in the extras iso, but it's not in
by default.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> It only appeared on the mirror here yesterday evening.
But I bet you have a place (Linux Weekly News or such)
where the announcements are made, and everybody knows in
a matter of seconds? Of course, downloading is another
issue (see the Slackware FTP...)
Didn't intend to offense you, by the way. I just thought
that it was a bit too much Linux specific and not POV
enough. And besides, this Linux program, err, I think
there are lots of places where you can talk about it,
right? :-)
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> If it isn't stable and released than it is called alpha or beta, not final.
> GCC 3.0 is final, so it is stable. If it is not, then it is from M$ ;-)
> Alternatively, it is just incompetence of the authors - their own list for
> testing included the Linux kernel...
Let's clarify some points.
IMNSHO...
Alphas are (should be) for testing the bare functionnalities
of a program, testing some new ideas, have the first feedback.
They are very buggy, and testers usually need to have means
to contact authors personnaly in order to solve problems
(that means a small team of testers)
Betas are (should be) for having most of the bugs squished,
and to have more feedback in terms of usability of the program.
But when no more bugs are found by the beta testers, and
everything seems stable and finished (as planned), it's time
for release.
And when the program is released, much more people use it,
and people use it for real-life needs, indeed, and so new,
hard-to-catch bugs are found. System incompatibilities, too,
because you can't test your program in every possible
configuration.
Most programs that I use have a .1 or .01 or whatever,
because that's the version the authors distribute. The .0
release is generally replaced by the same, bugless (we hope)
version.
Complex pieces of code like gcc, or the Linux kernel,
which use a lot of elaborate mechanisms, which deploys
for the first time new whole pieces of program (this is
a major realease guys!) have a 101% chance of containing
bugs.
I'm impressed to see lots of people rushing to use ReiserFS
to store their data, while there still are known bugs into
it! Using an instable program to do some calculus, or some
games is fine for me, but storing data unreliably... Wow.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Jul 2001 18:39:51 -0400, ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet (Steve) wrote:
>This means a kernel that will build with GCC 3.0
I know it compiled with egcs 1.1.2 fine as 2.4.6 is what I am running
now (and slowly replacing ipchains with iptables :) ). To try to
compile it with gcc 3.0 ... I'd rather e-mail Santa.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrien Beau wrote:
>
> I'm impressed to see lots of people rushing to use ReiserFS
> to store their data, while there still are known bugs into
> it! Using an instable program to do some calculus, or some
> games is fine for me, but storing data unreliably... Wow.
>
Yes, that is over the line for me - even though I otherwise have little
qualms over using beta software, including kernels. If the filesystem is
screwed, I'm screwed (what is that "backup" thing people keep talking
about?)
I did try building kernel 2.4.6 with gcc 3.0 BTW, but the result was
decidedly not stable. Looks like I'll have to switch back to 2.96 for
now; no biggie really, frankly I haven't seen *that* huge performance
leaps from using 3.0
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
