From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Brandon S. Allbery" Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 01:52:53 +0000 Subject: Re: status of UltraPenguin? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ultralinux@vger.kernel.org From: Jakub Jelinek +----- | Ok, this is not the first question, so I'll answer to everybody. | I thought 1.1 will come soon after 1.0.9, but during the time we were | fighting little bugs in 1.0.9, redhat came with 5.1, so I have mistakenly | merged a few packages and the result is some broken things in the | distribution, me already not knowing which rpms have changed from stock | redhat and which not (and why). +--->8 That's not your fault; Red Hat started releasing 5.1 security updates for 5.0 and didn't take any care to deal with compatibility. The initscripts update is a major problem, as the 5.1 initscripts package assumes the Red Hat 5.1 kernel identification convention (%{version}-%{release} to identify the modules directory in /lib/modules, whereas 5.0's used only %{version}) --- and everything seems to work fine unless you rebuild the kernel :-( There are other such incompatibilities in the 5.0 patches as well. *grumble* This stung us bad when I was mirroring the RH50 updates for ECE and also building new kernels to support functionality we needed... while staying with the 2.0.33 kernel, because 2.0.34 didn't work with the Linux AFS port then available. -- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering carnegie mellon university (bsa@kf8nh is still valid.)