So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update for the 2163 kernel.
Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available for i386 also available for x86_64?
So far I have been very pleased with the x86_64 version but I would like to get more "current" (especially the security fixes) and building the rpms myself (while doable) is a bit of a pain (and needs to be repeated by every one of us who wants to update).
So far my experience in trying to port some software (which is also designed to run on MS Windows) has proved to be a real learning experience. This is especially true for the "long" variable which is 4 bytes on 32 bit systems, 8 bytes on 64 bit *nix and Linux systems, and 4 bytes on MS Windows 64 bit systems.
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 08:59, Gene C. wrote:
So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update for the 2163 kernel.
Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available for i386 also available for x86_64?
So far I have been very pleased with the x86_64 version but I would like to get more "current" (especially the security fixes) and building the rpms myself (while doable) is a bit of a pain (and needs to be repeated by every one of us who wants to update).
i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the updates for x86-64?
how will x86-64 be treated in fedora core 2?
rob.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Myers wrote: | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 08:59, Gene C. wrote: | |>So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update |>for the 2163 kernel. |> |>Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available |>for i386 also available for x86_64? |> |>So far I have been very pleased with the x86_64 version but I would like to |>get more "current" (especially the security fixes) and building the rpms |>myself (while doable) is a bit of a pain (and needs to be repeated by every |>one of us who wants to update). | | | i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the updates | for x86-64?
As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the updates as they are released.
| how will x86-64 be treated in fedora core 2?
Goos question but from what I have heard it will be supported.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote:
| how will x86-64 be treated in fedora core 2?
Goos question but from what I have heard it will be supported.
Yes, but from the first test version for the i386 or following somewhat later. Doing both at once has to be more work than doing them sequentially. If it was not more work then I think we would have seen a lot more updates for test1 by now (e.g., the slocate update which just came out).
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:34:17AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote:
| how will x86-64 be treated in fedora core 2?
Goos question but from what I have heard it will be supported.
Yes, but from the first test version for the i386 or following somewhat later. Doing both at once has to be more work than doing them sequentially. If it was not more work then I think we would have seen a lot more updates for test1 by now (e.g., the slocate update which just came out).
When things are in concurrent release, it should not be more work. With test though, sometimes you have to apply test updates, and things are not in sync. SRPMS should always be the same for both i386 and x86_64, so the build system builds both packages, the question is if they are published or not. Test requires a special case, so all updates must be pushed by hand.
Justin
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Myers wrote: | i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the updates | for x86-64?
As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the updates as they are released.
chuck, would you be willing to setup an updates yum repo for the rest of us?
rob.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Myers" rob.myers@gtri.gatech.edu To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:36 PM Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Myers wrote: | i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the
updates
| for x86-64?
As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the updates as they are released.
chuck, would you be willing to setup an updates yum repo for the rest of us?
rob.
i will be happy to setup a repos as soon i get my raid configuration set. I do not have a high upload rate but its 384K down to the client. So it should be fast enough unless your downloading a kernel and want it in less then 10 seconds.. hehe.
jason
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, jason pearl wrote:
i will be happy to setup a repos as soon i get my raid configuration set. I do not have a high upload rate but its 384K down to the client. So it should be fast enough unless your downloading a kernel and want it in less then 10 seconds.. hehe.
What's the performance like on the Opteron?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Wildman, CISSP, RHCE jim@rossberry.com http://www.rossberry.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Myers wrote: | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote: | |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>Hash: SHA1 |> |>Rob Myers wrote: |>| i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the updates |>| for x86-64? |> |>As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the |>updates as they are released. | | | chuck, would you be willing to setup an updates yum repo for the rest of | us? | | rob.
Yeah I can do it... I am not sure what the data rate is but I have access to a people.redhat.com location and could put it there as a short term solution. I am already hosting some yum repositories for packages that I care about at http://moongroup.com/files.html.
If you guys would like me to do this I'd be glad to... one thing though... I don't want to get yelled at for *NOT* having things done in a timely manner though as I *DO* have a day job!
So... that said... since most of the updates were already in our release what do we need today? I'd expect it's just slocate right?
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chuck Mead wrote: | Rob Myers wrote: | | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote: | | | |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | |>Hash: SHA1 | |> | |>Rob Myers wrote: | |>| i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the | updates | |>| for x86-64? | |> | |>As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the | |>updates as they are released. | | | | | | chuck, would you be willing to setup an updates yum repo for the rest of | | us? | | | | rob. | | Yeah I can do it... I am not sure what the data rate is but I have | access to a people.redhat.com location and could put it there as a short | term solution. I am already hosting some yum repositories for packages | that I care about at http://moongroup.com/files.html. | | If you guys would like me to do this I'd be glad to... one thing | though... I don't want to get yelled at for *NOT* having things done in | a timely manner though as I *DO* have a day job! | | So... that said... since most of the updates were already in our release | what do we need today? I'd expect it's just slocate right?
Okay... the slocate update now lives at this URL:
http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
The location is yummified!
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chuck Mead wrote: | Chuck Mead wrote: | | Rob Myers wrote: | | | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:14, Chuck Mead wrote: | | | | | |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | | |>Hash: SHA1 | | |> | | |>Rob Myers wrote: | | |>| i'm in the same boat. perhaps we should coordinate building the | | updates | | |>| for x86-64? | | |> | | |>As am I. I have been snagging the src.rpm's and building/applying the | | |>updates as they are released. | | | | | | | | | chuck, would you be willing to setup an updates yum repo for the | rest of | | | us? | | | | | | rob. | | | | Yeah I can do it... I am not sure what the data rate is but I have | | access to a people.redhat.com location and could put it there as a short | | term solution. I am already hosting some yum repositories for packages | | that I care about at http://moongroup.com/files.html. | | | | If you guys would like me to do this I'd be glad to... one thing | | though... I don't want to get yelled at for *NOT* having things done in | | a timely manner though as I *DO* have a day job! | | | | So... that said... since most of the updates were already in our release | | what do we need today? I'd expect it's just slocate right? | | Okay... the slocate update now lives at this URL: | | http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/ | | The location is yummified!
Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
It worked fine.
If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know. For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
It worked fine.
If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know. For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some effort!
i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
package version on i386 version on x86-64 ------------------------------------------------------------------- net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2 kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135 glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
is this data correct? is it worth updating these packages?
the kernel package seems important, but i'm running 2.6.2-rc2 so i don't care too much.
let me know what you think, and thanks again for the slocate update!
rob.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Myers wrote: | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote: | |>Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry: |> |> |>[updates] |>name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates |>baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/ |> |>It worked fine. |> |>If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know. |>For now the slocate update is present and accounted for. | | | thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some | effort! | | i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron | and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync. | | package version on i386 version on x86-64 | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2 | kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135 | glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1 | | is this data correct? is it worth updating these packages? | | the kernel package seems important, but i'm running 2.6.2-rc2 so i don't | care too much. | | let me know what you think, and thanks again for the slocate update! | | rob. | | [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.4
*there are two of these because one provides x86 compatibility I will see about an update
[csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q net-snmp net-snmp-5.0.9-2 <---- I will see about providing an update for this.
[csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2135.nptl kernel-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl <---- I can provide an update for this also but I don't want to do both... seems unnecessary!
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote: RM>> RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry: RM>> RM>> RM>> [updates] RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/ RM>> RM>> It worked fine. RM>> RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know. RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for. RM> RM>thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some RM>effort! RM> RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync. RM> RM>package version on i386 version on x86-64 RM>------------------------------------------------------------------- RM>net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2 RM>kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135 RM>glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm@Lunar-Linux.org spewed into the bitstream:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote: RM>> RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry: RM>> RM>> RM>> [updates] RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/ RM>> RM>> It worked fine. RM>> RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know. RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for. RM> RM>thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some RM>effort! RM> RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync. RM> RM>package version on i386 version on x86-64 RM>------------------------------------------------------------------- RM>net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2 RM>kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135 RM>glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
csm@Lunar-Linux.org wrote: | On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm@Lunar-Linux.org spewed into the bitstream: | | | Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates | there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
Alright the updates are posted. Here is the appropriate section from my yum.conf:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
Here is the appropriate section from my /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources:
yum updates http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
I don't think the bandwidth will be all that great but maybe someone else might grab them and put them on a faster site.
Also... rebuilding net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm fails badly. Here is the error:
gcc -I/usr/include/rpm -DINET6 -O2 -g -pipe -Dlinux -I/usr/include/rpm - -o .libs/snmpd snmpd.o ./.libs/libnetsnmpagent.so ./.libs/libnetsnmpmibs.so helpers/.libs/libnetsnmphelpers.so - -L/usr/lib/lib -lwrap ../snmplib/.libs/libnetsnmp.so -ldl -lrpm -lrpmio /usr/lib/libpopt.so -lbz2 -lz -lcrypto -lelf -lm -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64 /usr/lib/libpopt.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [snmpd] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/csm/redhat/BUILD/net-snmp-5.1/agent' make: *** [subdirs] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
RPM build errors: ~ Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
I bugzilla'd this already but I have no time to fool around with it as I am off to Boston tomorrow morning for a couple of days.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 23:45, Chuck Mead wrote:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
Here is the appropriate section from my /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources:
yum updates http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
I don't think the bandwidth will be all that great but maybe someone else might grab them and put them on a faster site.
i mirrored these for now here:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://null0.routing.org/~rob/www.moongroup.com/fedora/
i'll see if i can look at what they're doing with net-snmp in fedora/core/development/x86-64.
rob.
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 07:24, Rob Myers wrote:
i mirrored these for now here:
[updates] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates baseurl=http://null0.routing.org/~rob/www.moongroup.com/fedora/
i'll see if i can look at what they're doing with net-snmp in fedora/core/development/x86-64.
i didn't have any trouble rebuilding the net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm so i added that to my mirror of chuck's updates. i'll try to sync everything up with chuck when he returns from boston.
are there any updates that are missing?
rob.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
RM>On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 07:24, Rob Myers wrote: RM>> i mirrored these for now here: RM>> RM>> [updates] RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates RM>> baseurl=http://null0.routing.org/~rob/www.moongroup.com/fedora/ RM>> RM>> i'll see if i can look at what they're doing with net-snmp in RM>> fedora/core/development/x86-64. RM> RM>i didn't have any trouble rebuilding the net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm so i RM>added that to my mirror of chuck's updates. i'll try to sync everything RM>up with chuck when he returns from boston. RM> RM>are there any updates that are missing?
I am still in Boston but I had a moment so I went ahead and added the net-snmp stuff to my repository. I dunno why I could not build it but I have it in my repository now.
So... do we have all the updates now?
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Friday 30 January 2004 12:19, csm@Lunar-Linux.org wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
RM>On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 07:24, Rob Myers wrote: RM>> i mirrored these for now here: RM>> RM>> [updates] RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates RM>> baseurl=http://null0.routing.org/~rob/www.moongroup.com/fedora/ RM>> RM>> i'll see if i can look at what they're doing with net-snmp in RM>> fedora/core/development/x86-64. RM> RM>i didn't have any trouble rebuilding the net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm so i RM>added that to my mirror of chuck's updates. i'll try to sync everything RM>up with chuck when he returns from boston. RM> RM>are there any updates that are missing?
I am still in Boston but I had a moment so I went ahead and added the net-snmp stuff to my repository. I dunno why I could not build it but I have it in my repository now.
So... do we have all the updates now?
I have rebuilt gcc-3.3.2-6 for x86_64 .. the package is currently in updates/testing. This fixes a bug in gcc which causes it to go into a loop on the x86_64 (I know, I found the bug but, of course, Jakub fixed it).
Is there some way I could upload thse packages directly to your server? Yes, I do have a server that I could upload them to and then you could get them from there but I would prefer not to do that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Gene C. spewed into the bitstream: GC>On Friday 30 January 2004 12:19, csm@Lunar-Linux.org wrote: GC>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream: GC>> GC>> RM>On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 07:24, Rob Myers wrote: GC>> RM>> i mirrored these for now here: GC>> RM>> GC>> RM>> [updates] GC>> RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates GC>> RM>> baseurl=http://null0.routing.org/~rob/www.moongroup.com/fedora/ GC>> RM>> GC>> RM>> i'll see if i can look at what they're doing with net-snmp in GC>> RM>> fedora/core/development/x86-64. GC>> RM> GC>> RM>i didn't have any trouble rebuilding the net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm so i GC>> RM>added that to my mirror of chuck's updates. i'll try to sync everything GC>> RM>up with chuck when he returns from boston. GC>> RM> GC>> RM>are there any updates that are missing? GC>> GC>> I am still in Boston but I had a moment so I went ahead and added the GC>> net-snmp stuff to my repository. I dunno why I could not build it but I GC>> have it in my repository now. GC>> GC>> So... do we have all the updates now? GC> GC>I have rebuilt gcc-3.3.2-6 for x86_64 .. the package is currently in GC>updates/testing. This fixes a bug in gcc which causes it to go into a loop GC>on the x86_64 (I know, I found the bug but, of course, Jakub fixed it). GC> GC>Is there some way I could upload thse packages directly to your server? Yes, GC>I do have a server that I could upload them to and then you could get them GC>from there but I would prefer not to do that.
The machine is the web/mail server for an ISP which turns on on Feb 1st. I can't do it... sorry. But I will gladly grab them and post them to the repository.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Friday 30 January 2004 13:27, csm@Lunar-Linux.org wrote:
The machine is the web/mail server for an ISP which turns on on Feb 1st. I can't do it... sorry. But I will gladly grab them and post them to the repository.
Ok, I will upload them to my server and post the location ... but it will be a bit later today.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Gene C. spewed into the bitstream:
GC>On Friday 30 January 2004 13:27, csm@Lunar-Linux.org wrote: GC>> The machine is the web/mail server for an ISP which turns on on Feb 1st. I GC>> can't do it... sorry. But I will gladly grab them and post them to the GC>> repository. GC> GC>Ok, I will upload them to my server and post the location ... but it will be a GC>bit later today.
Okees... I will likely not be able to update the repository until sometime tomorrow.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:05:36PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
So... that said... since most of the updates were already in our release what do we need today? I'd expect it's just slocate right?
The release was actually packaged/current as of christmas, anything since then needs to be added.
Justin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Justin M. Forbes wrote: | On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:05:36PM -0500, Chuck Mead wrote: | |>So... that said... since most of the updates were already in our release |>what do we need today? I'd expect it's just slocate right? |> | | The release was actually packaged/current as of christmas, anything since | then needs to be added.
Okay well all I know for sure is slocate (I am not going to do updates-testing). Is there anything else?
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:02:53AM -0500, Rob Myers wrote:
how will x86-64 be treated in fedora core 2?
The expectation at this point is that FC2 will treat AMD64 as a tier one platform, going through the test cycle (possibly starting at test2) and concurrent GA and updates.
Justin
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
So far my experience in trying to port some software (which is also designed to run on MS Windows) has proved to be a real learning experience. This is especially true for the "long" variable which is 4 bytes on 32 bit systems, 8 bytes on 64 bit *nix and Linux systems, and 4 bytes on MS Windows 64 bit systems.
For some of us who were using Alpha and other 64-bit processors this experience is some decade long or something like that. This detail that Red Hat had Alpha and SPARC distribution for quite a while is not without a significance in that that 64-bit user space on x86_64 basically "just works". Personally I run into the issue even earlier. "Natural" sizes on Atari ST with MC68000 were 2 for sizeof(int) and 4 for longs and pointers.
It is indeed PITA that many were able to forget what they were hopefuly told in an introductory C programming class. Historically this is known as "all the world is VAX" syndrome so the problem is far from beeing new. :-)
Michal
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:33, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
For some of us who were using Alpha and other 64-bit processors this experience is some decade long or something like that. This detail that Red Hat had Alpha and SPARC distribution for quite a while is not without a significance in that that 64-bit user space on x86_64 basically "just works". Personally I run into the issue even earlier. "Natural" sizes on Atari ST with MC68000 were 2 for sizeof(int) and 4 for longs and pointers.
It is not the packages that are maintained/QA'ed by companies/organizations such as Red Hat, SUSE, Mandrake, Debian, *BSD, etc. but the 3rd party packages who only worry about the 32 bit world ... and Microsoft's choice of 4 byte "long" but 8 byte pointers in their 64 bit Windows does not make things easier either.
This http://www.opengroup.org/public/tech/aspen/lp64_wp.htm is a nice writeup on the 64 bit programming models.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update for the 2163 kernel.
Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available for i386 also available for x86_64?
It is my understanding that this will not be done as a test release, though when the release goes GA, it should receive all relevant updates available for i386.
Thanks, Justin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Justin M. Forbes wrote: | On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Gene C. wrote: | |>So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update |>for the 2163 kernel. |> |>Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available |>for i386 also available for x86_64? |> | | It is my understanding that this will not be done as a test release, though | when the release goes GA, it should receive all relevant updates available | for i386.
With respect to FC2 64bit will be part of the deal. The internal build system is already building those packages as they are prepared.
- -- csm Lunar Linux Project Lead Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..." Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-
Chuck Mead -
csm＠Lunar-Linux.org
-
Gene C. -
jason pearl -
Jim Wildman -
Justin M. Forbes -
Michal Jaegermann -
Rob Myers