Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Fedora Core 4 Test 1 Now Available

Posted by timothy on from the are-ipods-plug-and-play-yet dept.

krunchyfrog writes "The first test release of Fedora Core 4 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. New features in Fedora Core 4 test 1 include previews of GCC 4.0, GNOME 2.10, and KDE 3.4, as well as support for the PowerPC architecture. Please file bugs via Bugzilla, Product Fedora Core, Version fc4test1, so that they are noticed and appropriately classified. Discuss this release on fedora-test-list. -- The BitTorrent link is already there."

11 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Quick RPM Version Check by rimu+guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just been poring over the new RPM versions...

    I see FC4 includes MySQL 4.1.10 a nice wee jump up from 3.23. Apparently RedHat are now happy with the MySQL licensing terms.

    It has Eclipse 3.1, dovecot, bash 3 (with debugger), Tomcat 5 (but only 5.0, not the declared stable 5.5.7), Xen 2. And that is about all that caught my eye.

    Having just been recompiling the RHEL4 sources I'm struck by how similar the versions all are. I'm presuming that rhel4 split off fc4 or vice versa a month or two back. I'd be curious how/if they co-ordinate all the patches and source code between the two different brands.

    --
    FC3 (now!) and RHEL4-based (soon!) VPSs

    1. Re:Quick RPM Version Check by tbspit · · Score: 5, Informative

      They seem to have used a 2.0 beta version of OpenOffice.org as well (rpm has version 1.9.83).

    2. Re:Quick RPM Version Check by Baal+Sebub · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's already in DistroWatch. Check it out for a quick overview of package versions.

      --
      120 chars are not enough for a signature. I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to c
  2. Re:Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum? by irchs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, just update the to the relevent fedora-release rpm and make sure the yum version of FC4T1's version, and run yum upgrade Jan

    --
    Jan
  3. Re:Download size question by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Source code compresses better than binary.

  4. Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb? by davidkv · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dependencies are handled much the same way as with .debs. You can use apt, yum, up2date or red-carpet for automatic resolving/retreiving.

    I doubt that Red Hat will change to another package manager in the foreseeable future. If something needs to be implemented, they'll change the rpm application/behaviour (as has been done numerous times).

  5. Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea by davidkv · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find answers to most of (all?) your problems here:
    http://www.fedorafaq.org

    Shipping NTFS and MP3 is encumbered with legal problems, that's why they're not included by default. Google can tell you that within seconds.

  6. Re:The Big Question... by k98sven · · Score: 4, Informative

    The big question is, does it support MP3 out of the box (off the CD?).

    No, it does not, and will not as long as the patent is in force.

    Red Hat would end up being liable to pay Fraunhofer licensing for RHEL, and possibly for FC4 too.

    Are you going to pay for that license? No? Then quit bitching about Red Hat and put that energy towards the real problem here: Software patents.

  7. Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its important to note however that the 6-12 month reinstall cycle doesnt include a full format. Going from FC1 to FC2 certainly caused some minor problems for some folks, but since then I've seen very few complaints about being able to upgrade through yum and/or just inserting the CDs and updating. So in that regards its not too much different then a Service Pack in Windows world, except its a really really effective and useful service pack:) Also, Fedora legacy will support it for 1.5 years at a minimum and possibly more if the community sees interest in it. I'm looking really foward to this release, seems to have a ton of potential (although Core 5 seems like its going to be the big release of this year once Fedora Extras gets all figured out)
    Regards,
    Steve

  8. Re:The Big Question... by k98sven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, how come every other linux distro doesn't have this problem. AFAIK, FC (maybe redhat) is the only distro that doesn't support MP3 out of the box. Doesn't the patent license only cover commercial use of the CODEC? Isn't personal use licensed for free? How come so many other companies give away free mp3 codecs for free?

    No, the patent license covers ALL use. However, Fraunhofer says that they won't enforce it against free software. There is nothing written on that, and it is not legally binding.

    SuSE and Mandrake think that's enough of a guarantee for them and obviously are willing to take that risk. Red Hat decided differently. (Which is reasonable; they're the biggest vendor, and thus the most likely target, not to mention that they're based in the litigation-happy USA.)

  9. Re:Bug-free Linux distributions by pyros · · Score: 4, Informative
    When you install a deb, it goes out and gets any of the dependencies that you may need, RPM makes you go and find them yourself... which really isn't all that bad now, but back in the day, it was a PITA.

    You're comparing a dependency resolver (apt) to a package format (RPM). The only things you can compare are DEB vs RPM (formats), dpkg vs rpm (single package installation/removal tools), and apt vs yum/up2date (dependency resolvers included with a standard install of debian and fedora, resp.). Fedora also has apt included in the official Fedora Extras repo on download.fedora.redhat.com.

    I want to hear features of the DPKG format absent in the RPM format which make the job of dependency resolvers easier.