Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:06:19 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Subhro <subhro.kar@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiling 4-RELEASE on 5-STABLE Message-ID: <20041014100619.GB54754@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <b2807d0404101321223f96161e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20041014000024.T27161@dante.zefram.net> <b2807d0404101321223f96161e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:52:52AM +0530, Subhro wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <zefram@zefram.net> wrote: > > My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade > > my non-production machines to 5.3 > > Nice idea > > once it is released, however I'd like > > the production servers to lag behind once I make sure everything is > > working right. > > If everything is not working right, then 5.3 wouldnever be tagged > STABLE. This is not Windows. 5.3 will have bugs even when tagged -stable. I can guarantee that once 5.3 is released and people start using it more widely there will be new problems being reported that haven't been discovered yet. > 4.10-R uses gcc 2.95 and 5.3 uses gcc 3.4. The binaries compiled with > the later are not backward compatble. You do realise that you can install gcc 3.4 on a 4.x machine and run the binaries compiled with it? For C++ the ABI has changed a couple of times betwenn gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.4, but for C everything should work fine, as long as you link against the right libraries. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041014100619.GB54754>