RH8 vs RH9 (Robert G. Brown)
rokrau at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 1 13:06:40 EDT 2003
--- beowulf-request at scyld.com wrote:
> 6. Re:RH8 vs RH9 (Robert G. Brown)
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <rgb at phy.duke.edu>
> Many humans wonder about that, given the very short time that RH8 was
> around before RH9 came out. The usual rule is that major number
> upgrades are associated with changes in core libraries that break
> compatibility, so that binaries built for RH 8 are not guaranteed to
> work for RH 9.
Indeed some of them wont, I have first hand experience that binaries
produced with the Intel Fortran compiler on RH-8, even when statically
linked, will not run on a RH-9 system. Further, if you need the Intel
Fortan compiler, RH-9 is not really an option for you because it is not
officially supported and it will not be either. Inofficially I can
confirm that it works fine if you are not using the OpenMP capabilities
of the compiler.
> achieve it. Fedora will likely be strongly derived from 9 and the
> current rawhide in any event. How the "community based" RH release
> end up being maintained is the interesting question. One possibility
> "as rapidly as RHEL plus a few days", the difference being the time
> required to download the GPL-required logo-free source rpm(s) after
> update and rebuild them and insert them into the community version.
Having used fedora in the past on a desktop client I am hopeful that it
will be possible to get all necessary packages for a cluster into an
'aptable' repository, be it hosted by fedora or somewhere else (think
e.g. sourceforge). If people work together, as they have in the past,
I dont see why RH would succeed pushing their rediculous price policies
upon cluster users.
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf