On Tuesday 13 June 2006 22:54, Robert Nelson wrote: > Hmm, that's too bad about your FC5 experience.
Yes, it is my first really bad experience with RedHat/Fedora. > I've been running it here > for a couple of months without any of these issues on an AMD 64 machine. I > also upgraded from FC4. Granted I don't have any printers attached to it > all my printers are network attached. I also ran it here for several months but on a machine that is not heavily used. The problems started happening when I upgraded my backup server, then got worse when I upgraded my development machine. > > As far as the compiler is concerned, I don't think that is really the fault > of Fedora. Well, it is Fedora that decides exactly when to upgrade. > The compiler folks have just improved? the optimization. One > of the drawbacks of increased optimization is you need to make some > assumptions about the code. While those assumptions may be valid with some > code it isn't valid with others and the compiler tells you not to use those > optimizations. I have to admit that they do warn you, but I would also say that I have been using compilers for a *very* long time, and this is the first time that I have had what I thought was a simple upgrade generate such an enormous number of new warning messages. > > Adding -fno-strict-aliasing should eliminate most of those warnings and > make the code more stable. Yes, I am aware of that, but it also requires testing for GNU C++ and adding the option, all of which is a lot of work for code that has worked fine for 6 years now. > > What Window manager are you using with X? I haven't had any problems with > gnome but I don't think KDE is as well tested. I'm using KDE. > > The only issue I've ever been able to attribute directly to redhat was a > change they made to mtx that is definitely busted and doesn't work with > some tape drives but I think it was also in FC4. I don't particularly attribute these problems directly to RedHat, but they are the ones packaging it all together, and I am getting the unpleasant feeling that they are trying to move Fedora too fast. > > I'll take a look at the st driver changes between FC4 and FC5 and see what > they've done. Thanks. Please don't spend too much time on it. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kern > Sibbald > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:09 AM > To: bacula-announce > Cc: bacula-devel; bacula-users > Subject: [Bacula-users] Bacula version 1.38.10 released to Source Forge > > Hello, > > [...Release Information Removed....] > > Fedora FC5 warning !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > I have recently upgraded a number of my machines (fortunately not my web > server) to FC5, and I can say without reservation that it is the most > unstable RedHat/Fedora system that I have ever seen. Among my gripes: > > - The new GNU C++ compiler spews out tons of warning messages for Bacula > mostly concerning "type punned pointers and strict anti-aliasing > problems". > It is now necessary to be a rocket scientist before even considering > using the GNU C++ compiler :-( > - If I attempt to configure my printer, cups consumes every byte of > available > space on my / partition continuously logging the same authentication > error message. > - All "lpr filename" output gets printed in Landscape rather than Portrait > (programs such as OO and browsers that explicitly set the orientation do > print correctly). > - At random all my Window borders disappear requiring me to abort X > otherwise > there is NO window management. > - The Bacula storage daemon gets a lot of errors of the following kind: > Matou.2006-06-13_03.05.00 Error: block.c:538 Write error at 71:0 on > device "HP DLT 80" (/dev/nst0). ERR=Device or resource busy. > which is absurd; there is only one file descriptor open, how can it be > busy on a write request? > - While running the SD under gdb debugging this problem (which IMO is a > kernel > driver bug), the OS hangs. An OS hang while running gdb, you got to be > kidding, I haven't seen that for 5 years -- cool guys! > - The FC4 to FC5 upgrade fails in numerous ways, often leaving you with a > system with half FC4 rpms and half FC5 rpms (this happened on several > systems). Trying to upgrade a half FC4/FC5 system is not fun, because > nearly every way you turn, you have unresolved dependencies ... > > In short FC5 is a *BAD* release, and if you are on FC4 and considering > moving > up to FC5, I would recommend reading over my list of woes before making any > decision. > > Concerning the FC5 rpms. Scott is not yet running an FC5 system (good > choice > > Scott), so I am going to make the FC5 rpms, but given the general lack of > stability, I am not sure when or how I am going to do it. > > I'd sure like to get back to programming, and starting to wonder if it is > possible to upgrade from FC5 to FC4 ... -- Best regards, Kern ("> /\ V_V _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
