Building & Installing on Red Hat Systems (Was: Make error - Solved)
jos at xos.nl
Tue Dec 2 11:01:31 CET 2008
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:47:08AM +0100, Alan DeKok wrote:
> It should be easier for *new* installs to use 2.x. Otherwise, they
> install the "latest" RHEL version, and then get told to upgrade.
This is unrealistic. How should RH maintain a "sliding" base? And what
does "RHEL5" mean if the version you have installed depends on the time
of installation? And what about large customers having many servers
installed and now install another one (with a different version)?
>From what I've seen, the FreeRADIUS community is the only one where the
philosophy of conservative distros is tried to be ignored.
Note that I have chosen myself to run a new(er) version of FreeRADIUS
on an installed base of RHEL4 servers, by "backporting" a recent Fedora
src.rpm to RHEL4. So I *do* see the need in some situations for having
a new version. But that's not the fault of Red Hat, it's just the way
Having said this, I think the frequency of new RHEL versions (4->5 was
2 years and 5->6 will be longer, as 5 is nearly 2 years old and there
is no RHEL6 beta yet) is too long. Software is just getting too old
that way if you want to stick to vendor-supplied versions.
-- Jos Vos <jos at xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
More information about the Freeradius-Users