[nos-bbs] JNOS (any NOS) and Fedora Core 5 - the bottom line.

[Bob Tenty]

>I suspect that glibc2.3.x systems work OK (I don't have one at this moment).

Skip, 

I can confirm that it compiles without problem with glibc 2.3

(Jnos, without INP3 of course )

That is on Mandriva/Mandrake 2006  with glibc 2.3.5 and gcc 4.01  

73,

Bob VE3TOK
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George (Skip) VerDuin 
  To: ab0wr at ab0wr.net ; TAPR xNOS Mailing List 
  Sent: May 30, 2006 9:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [nos-bbs] JNOS (any NOS) and Fedora Core 5 - the bottom line.


  AAARRG Tim,

  You have just both saved me from experimentation and doused my hopes in SUSE salvation.
  SUSE 10 was my target distro to work out of my FC-5 dilemma.
  Thank you very much for your report - I think...

  I find it interesting that jnos compiled on slackware at an ealier time can run OK.
  --> I use Slackware pre-compiled jnos2.0d successfully with FC-5 & glibc2.4 (several variants of "d").
  It is only when: <> 
  a.. jnos2.0e on Slackware 9.1 uses gcc3.2.3 
  a.. also FC-2 with gcc3.2.5 
  a.. You compile on SUSE-10 
  a.. I compile jnos2.0e on FC-5 & gcc4.1 
  that the engineering change shows up for glibc2.4.
  I suspect that glibc2.3.x systems work OK (I don't have one at this moment).

  This of course suggests that jnos"e" version introduced the longjmp into ksubr.c while at the same time gcc designers were changing longjmp specifications applied in (recent?) c version releases.
  But I'm a newcomer and don't know the version history well enough to speak to a whole story.
  Maiko clearly has done homework with FC-5 and gotten the same problem definition as I did.

  I see some solution options for myself: 
    1.. Find another (old & cheap?) computer for the jnos2.0e testbed on a older Linux with gcc3.x and glib2.3.x 
    2.. Continue with jnos2.0d until 2.0x solves this issue (Maiko - please do not see this as pressure from the user community) 
    3.. Find a way to support both glib2.3 & glib2.4 on FC-5 simultaneously 
  and I am looking toward #3 because it addresses other issues for the long haul...
  Today I have no solution in hand - my doc project slows down if I choose #2...

  Of interest?
  see Linux Journal June 2006 etc/rant: "Bottom line - if you're already a Fedora fan, you'll want Core 5.  If you use anything else, now is not the time to switch."  Emphasis by me.

  I want to echo your sentiments "always something" and "kudos Maiko" and "isn't urgent".
  Seems right to me.

  On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 13:52 -0500, Tim Gorman wrote: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20060531/5696766c/attachment.html>