RTEMS with RH 9.0
corsepiu at faw.uni-ulm.de
Mon Dec 22 19:39:19 UTC 2003
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 19:45, Chris Sparks wrote:
> So what you are telling me is that you are having no problems whatsoever
> with FC 1.0?
> This OS has been a virtual nightmare. I belong to the email list for FC
> 1.0 and that is a
> horror story being written daily! So why did you switch from RH 9.0?
* It comes with more current tools and toolsets than RH-9 (E.g. gnome
and g++. I am primarily working on Gnome- and C++- applications).
Wrt. RTEMS the autotools shipped with FC1 are sufficient for RTEMS-4.6.
* RH-9 had not shown to be as "bug-free" to me as I had wished it to be.
(E.g. perl's utf8 support is RH-9 is more or less defunct and had broken
many perl applications)
* I had wanted to try it.
* The policy RH applies to FC1 development is exactly what I had been
looking for long.
* Apt/yum support. I had been a freshrpms and apt-rpm user for quite a
while. Using fedora.us and freshrpms spares me a lot of effort, I had
done myself in the past. Esp. fedora.us being synchronized with FC1 and
freshrpms respecting fedora.us and FC1, has let to better quality of 3rd
party packages, than the situation had been with RH9.
> I would think it is more stable that FC 1.0.
That's not my experience. RH-9 has had some bugs, FC1 has some, both are
more or less stable, both occasionally require some manual intervention,
both might not be suitable for beginners.
In a nutshell: To me, the difference between RH-9 and FC1 is not much
more than the "usual difference" between two different RH releases
before. One difference however: In comparistion to the upgrade from
RH-8.0 to RH-9, the upgrade from RH-9 to FC1 using apt was pretty
More information about the users