[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: Upgrading gcc libraries--best way?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 09:26, John Thomas wrote:
> Thanks to all for the lengthy and useful comments.  I think I will 
> simply backup and install a newer distro.  Given the cost of a new Linux 
> distro, this isn't a big deal.

There shouldn't be much stopping you from upgrading via CD.
Red Hat Linux 7.3 is new enough that a CD upgrade to Fedora Core 1 or
Fedora Core 3 should only have minor issues.
In fact, if you upgrade, it _will_ install those "compat-libs" for you.
That's the #1 reason why I almost _always_ upgrade, instead of clean
install, with RHL/FC.

If you have 3rd party RPMs, consider upgrading them too _after_ you
install.  If you have Ximian installed, uninstall it _first_.
If you have FreshRPMS or another, 3rd party RPM set outside of Fedora.US
(fka The Fedora Project now Fedora Extras), uninstall those too.

> Any thoughts on the differences between the Fedora Core and the RH 
> "enterprise" versions?

The Fedora Project is the official, Red Hat sponsored community built
around the former Red Hat Linux codebase.  The direct upgrade path from
Red Hat Linux is Fedora Core.  The Fedora Extra project provides APT and
other packages.  Fedora Legacy provides support for the "most stable"
revisions of former versions.  E.g.,

  "CL2.3" Red Hat Linux 7.3
  "CL3.2" Fedora Core 1
 ("CL3.1" Red Hat Linux 9 is still being supported too).

Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 is based on the CL2 (RHL7) line.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 is based on the CL3 (RHL8/9/FC1) line.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 will be based on the CL4 (FC2-4) line.

Now that Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1) is out, it is quite stable.  Like any
previous Red Hat Linux release, the ".0" revision is always a bit
flakky.  They adopt a new, core ABI (kernel, GCC, GLibC) and other,
major changes.  By the time the ".1" revision comes out, the details
have been worked out, and most 3rd party packages have adopted the new
ABI.

Unless the package in a RHAS/RHEL has the "EL" tag in its version, it is
100% _verbatim_ from RHL/FC.  The "EL" tag means it has been modified. 
It could be just locale (e.g., RHL/FC packages support more locales than
RHAS/RHEL), or it could be additives (e.g., stuff signed under NDA --
especially for the kernel).  You can roll out a FC release with select
RHEL packages added.  I know, I have.

Otherwise, FC has worked flawlessly for me with even commercial binary
software (e.g., Oracle).  The only thing I have to do is "line up" the
proper "Community" Linux with the certified "Enterprise" Linux version. 
E.g., if the software calls for RHEL3, don't run FC2+, run FC1.

> I have two systems where I want a solid, working installation, and a 
> third hobby system where I can experiment.

Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2) is very stable and mature.

If you want the "Enterprise" version rebuilt, consider cAos:  
  http://www.centos.org/  

They maintain their own Fedora Core (cAos Linux) and Enterprise Linux
(CentOS) versions.  I have never used their cAos Linux (I'd just rather
run Fedora Core itself), and I prefer to maintain my own Fedora Core
package mapping to RHEL, but I find CentOS is a bit more organized than
White Box Enterprise Linux.

Fedora Core 4 (CL4.2) will be as well.  Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1) is already
quite good IMHO.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                 b.j.smith at ieee.org 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Assumptions of the Fedora Project based on Red Hat Linux is like
assumptions of the Debian Project based on using old Corel Linux.