Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) [LWN.net]

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 23:46 UTC (Wed) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287)
In reply to: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) by davej
Parent article: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Well, as long as DaveJ is on this thread and I don't have mail access at present to use Bugzilla, I'd like to add my two cents r.e. FC6.

1. I *do* use FC6 in a production environment. Of course, my personal idea of *production* is HPC code development. Which means mixed C++ and hoary-old-fortran. Which also necessitates the very latest from gcc.org. Which in turn either means Fedora *or* interminable rebuilds of gcc to /usr/local, matching libraries in makefiles, etc. Which is certainly possible and I've certainly done it in the past. But keeping Fedora uptodate is certainly easier.

2. I noted two installation issues:
(a) If I configured and enabled the network during installation (a good idea, thanks) AND enabled "extras" during installation, Anaconda would crash -- apparently because we use static IP addressing on our LAN and the "extras at install time" feature had only been tested with DHCP. I'm not really complaining, as *I* didn't do that testing either. Nor could I figure out why on earth I needed "extras" at install time, for this installation (due to previous hard disk failure under FC5) was a fresh install rather than an upgrade).
(b) Due to aforementioned hard disk failure, the new install was to a raid 1 array. I configured a software raid because, while I'm brave, I'm not so brave as to trust my data to some jive ATi hardware raid controller. (I don't care how fast it can scramble my bits...) The Anaconda/Disk-Druid disk partitioner/raid-conjuger worked well enough, but I couldn't help but notice a certain, er, lack of editing capability for raid paritions once they had been entered: I either got them all right the first time (hah!) or started over from scratch. This is purely a human interface issue in the installer. What it does, it does fine. Would like a raid apparition editor, though.

And those were the only problems I saw, both on new Anaconda features. On some positive notes: (a) the Xorg 7.1 works fine. When I built it last March I configured this workstation with an Abit AT8 mobo and PowerCooler x700 video card 'cause I read somewhere (prolly LWN:) that a free driver was well underway for the ATI r300 chipset, and in FC6 that native radeon driver works just great: first time I've ever gotten Xinerama suppport from dual-view on a single graphics card with a native driver. (I've run triple-head Xinerama for years on an old FC-1 box, but that was with three vid cards.) I don't miss nvidia or fglrx one bit. (b) GCC/Gfortran/Gdb play together just great, which is what I need this box for. (The RealTek ALC 882D ALSA support is sure nice, though.)

The only repos I enable are fedora-[core-devel-legacy-updates-extras] 'cuz so far them's all I's needed. Yum has kept them all straight enough.

So yeah, I'm satisfied with FC-6. Happy, even. Thanks, props, kudos, etc. to all concerned.

Ed Leaver

(Log in to post comments)

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 0:34 UTC (Thu) by davej (guest, #354) [Link]

2a is very strange. As long as the static IP you give it is valid, along with the right gateway/nameservers, the package install phase should be completely ignorant to whether you're using static or dhcp.
If packets get from a to b, it should work, why would it care how you were assigned an IP ?

2b yes, the raid interface is a bit icky. I'm not a big fan myself either. I Believe the phrase the anaconda team uses is "Patches welcomed" :)
(however, kernel folks writing python is a scary thought, so I should probably stay away).

Glad you're happy with the dual head working. It's always good to hear that the radeon driver is actually working for a change :-)

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link]

"the package install phase should be completely ignorant to whether you're using static or dhcp."

And I've no doubt the package install is so ignorant. If it got that far. The problem appeared to be with the anaconda gui (python code?). I regret to have misplaced/pipe-13'd my install notes, I had intended to send them to Fedora, but couldn't get into Bugzilla without a mail account, which our IT guy seems to have managed to disable. My recollection is it appeared the gui form code itself choked. Do wish I could find my notes of the exact error message. If they turn up I'll let you know.

Yeah, I realize I lucked out on the radeon driver. But I took care to enable no options that the X --configure script didn't set, save xinerama. I only require a stable multi-monitor development environment, and 3D performance isn't an issue. Proprietary blobs cluttering up kernel space are, and I hope competition from INTEL will prompt DAAMIT to release (or at least give data spec support for) FOSS drivers for their integrated graphics and similar low-end discreet cards.

Anyway, its back to the code mines. Thanks again for all the ~~fish~~ cool tools.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 13:29 UTC (Thu) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]

The issue in the installer with using a static ip is known.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212018

thanks,
-sv

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 12, 2006 6:06 UTC (Sun) by routester (guest, #41631) [Link]

Incidently, error (failing install process, again no trace available but appeared to be from gui\python code) also occurs if dhcp is selected but dhcp is unavailable (ie - some coffee lacking individual failed to connect the cable at patch panel). Admittedly, this is a user issue, but imho it should not bail install completely but gracefully state something to the effect of "dhcp assignment unsuccessful, would you like to try again?" or perhaps "dhcp assignment unsuccessful, please beat the individual responsible for cabling the machine".