RE: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

From: bruce (
Date: 06/30/05

  • Next message: Mike McCarty: "Re: Wireless cards"
    To: "'For users of Fedora Core releases'" <>
    Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:35:39 -0700

    just out of curiosity, is there some place/wiki/etc.. where a user can go to
    check a given version of FC/Linux, and see what OS/Motherboard-Hardware
    config/apps work together...

    IE, like one big/searchable database!!! allow users to put in their
    information, in terms of what they see. at the same time, allow
    developers/maintainers of software/rpms to add information as well...



    -----Original Message-----
    []On Behalf Of Rahul Sundaram
    Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:20 AM
    To: For users of Fedora Core releases
    Cc: liu chang
    Subject: Re: FC4 good new tech, bad legacy support

    Richard Kelsch wrote:

    > Ok people, I'm not trying to be a bummer here, so please read this as
    > if it was meant to entertain, not insult. Think of me as a whining
    > comic. However, there is a seriousness to the root of this message:
    > After installing FC4 I was impressed with all of the new features,
    > speed and such. As a stand alone OS, it is superb. For me,
    > everything "stock" worked "out of the box." All hail Fedora Core 4!
    > I was singing praises, people were on the streets in awe. Life was
    > good. The installation went well, it operated well, everything that
    > was installed from the "core" or "extras" binary rpms worked superb...
    > However, I noticed after I started installing software I needed
    > (gzipped sourcem CPAN modules etc.), it's not very compatible with
    > older "legacy" software. In fact, as a rule, getting software not in
    > the "core", "extras", or "freshrpms" trees to work is a royal pain in
    > the fanny. Nothing compiles without errors. In fact, luck is a big
    > factor getting anything to work once you think you've got it
    > compiled. This isn't an issue with only one piece of software,
    > otherwise I'd consider myself ranting. No, I'm not going to file
    > numerous bug reports for things I'm not exactly sure where the bug
    > is. Yes, I had tried the gcc32 trick as well, and nothing works like
    > it should.

    If the software doesnt work with either gcc 3.2 or gcc 4.x then its
    probably broken. GCC 4.x is there as the primary compiler. compat-gcc-32
    for legacy support. I am not sure what else could be done better here.
    any ideas?


    fedora-list mailing list
    To unsubscribe:
    fedora-list mailing list
    To unsubscribe:

  • Next message: Mike McCarty: "Re: Wireless cards"