Red Hat Linux 7.3 Released

qurob was the first of many readers to submit that Red Hat 7.3 has been released. Press release doesn't contain any surprises, just lists a bunch of stuff thats included with the dist. (Evolution, Mozilla, Apache). So go find a mirror if you're a Red Hat runner. Update: 05/06 14:05 GMT by T : christooley helpfully points out this list of mirrors.

Comments

A Question

[Jouster]

With up2date, how much longer can RedHat release CDs?

It has been our policy at work for some time now to grab whatever the latest release is, run up2date on it, and modify a CD image of the old CD so it has the new RPMs.

Is this prevalent? Will it become more so?

Jouster

x.3 release

[Goronguer]

This may be a minor point, but Red Hat deserves credit for calling this release "7.3" instead of "8.0". Especially when their pattern for years now has been x.0, x.1, x.2, x+1.0..., it shows admirable restraint for them to break the pattern and resist the temptation to call this a major-version release, when it is in fact an update release. Let's hear it for truth in advertising!

Re:Old version of Mozilla?

[bero-rh]

It's not.
OpenOffice 1.0 was released way too late to get through the QA process (can't reveal the schedule of course, but take a look at the changelogs in packages to get an idea about when the release had to be deep-frozen ;) ).

There are a couple of other things that prevent it from getting into Rawhide at the moment.

Off the top of my head (there are probably some more):

• It doesn't build without Sun JDK. We're looking into porting to gcj, but it's quite a way to go. Since gcj in any gcc prior to 3.1 is rather sucky, this was not even possible for a 7.x release.
• The UNO stuff requires a specific version of gcc, and it's not the "right" one.
• The installation process is not suitable for packaging. (Try building an RPM of something requiring GUI input during installation...)

These are all fixable because it's Open Source, but they require a considerable amount of time.

Also, the database application is missing (because it couldn't be relicensed), and some people depend on it.

I'm expecting OpenOffice in the base distribution in the next release... But this is not an official statement and much less a promise.

Re:gcc-2.96

[bero-rh]

There's not much of a problem with 2.96.

Earlier versions than 2.96 are not an option because they don't do real C++ (see http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html).
3.0.x releases are rather broken and don't have any real advantages over the current builds of 2.96.

gcc 3.1 will be a very good release, even better than 2.96. It is what we're likely to use in the next major release (unless, of course, gcc 3.2 comes first and is good).

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[bero-rh]

There are several problems in the license.
The part I'm referring to is this:

2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 4 (Java Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software. (vi) include the following statement as part of product documentation (whether hard copy or electronic), as a part of a copyright page or proprietary rights notice page, in an "About" box or in any other form reasonably designed to make the statement visible to users of the Software: "This product includes code licensed from RSA Security, Inc.", and (vii) include the statement, "Some portions licensed from IBM are available at http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu4j/".

IANAL, but for me, this implies:

• non-transferable -- we can't allow anyone else to copy our CDs
• bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs -- we don't write anything in Java, so we'd be shipping it for a different purpose, e.g. to view someone else's Java applets -> we'd violate the license.
• You do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software -- while this is probably meant to say you can't require someone to install JDK and then remove javac to replace it with something else, it can be interpreted as "If you ship JDK, you may not ship any replacements for parts of it [such as GCJ, Jikes or Kaffe]". We ship gcj.