On Fri, 22 May 1998 "Michael J. McGillick" <mike@dungeon.ne.mediaone.net>
wrote:
> If anyone is currently running RH 5.0, and has successfully gotten to the
> point of running a test kernel, I would like to discuss the steps that you
> took to get to that point. I would like to keep the system as RPM'ized as
> possible by upgrading packages with RPMs, but I realize that some packages
> may not be currently available like this.
*Well*, if you find any package that is not current RPMed, you can make an
RPM as you install it and then post to ftp.redhat.com/pub/Incoming for all
of us to use.
[Packages needed]
> -> Kernel modules modutils-2.1.55-4 modutils-2.1.85
> -> Linux C Library libc-5.3.12-25 5.4.44
> -> Procinfo procinfo-0.11-1 13
> -> Mount mount-2.7f-1 2.7l
> -> Net-tools net-tools-1.33-4 1.45
> -> Loadlin not installed 1.6a
> -> NFS not installed 0.4.21
> -> Ncpfs ncpfs-2.0.11-3 2.2.0
> -> Pcmcia-cs pcmcia-cs-2.9.12-4 3.0.1
> -> PPP ppp-2.3.3-2 2.3.5
All of these are at ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/contrib.
You may have to rebuild from source (rpm --rebuild blah.srpm), because
some might be compiled for redhat 4.x. Not that you don't have to install
packages that aren't currently installed (loadlin, especially, and unless
you use NFS you can probably avoid that), and pcmcia-cs is best rebuilt
from the latest sources at ftp://hyper.stanford.edu/pub/pcmcia/NEW.
> All of the packages with arrows next to them look like they need to have
> newer versions installed. If I install the newer version, will it not
> allow my existing 2.0.34 kernel to work properly?
Yes. All these packages are backward-compatible.
> Is there a way to have
> both kernels working on the system, without having to repartition the
> drive?
Yes. 'man lilo'.
> Also, I've heard folks talking about gcc, pgcc and egcs. I'm
> assuming that these are all C compilers, but what's up with them? I
> thought gcc was the compiler that we currently use. Is there a movement
> underway to switch to a new standard C compiler for Linux?
gcc is going back into active development by (at least) three different
groups, who make efforts to keep most of their codebases synchronized, but
have different goals. <wandering into dangerous territory> Most people
should stick with gcc 2.7.2.3 for the moment. <running back out>
[Note to linux-kernel: before you comment on the above statement, consider
the context of the original question. I *do know* all the various reasons
for gcc/pgcc/egcs/etc and what they're working on and what they do, but
gcc 2.7.2.3 is undoubtedly best for Mr. McGillick at the moment.]
--Scott
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu