Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:37:15 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
Dept of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 11:09, Steve Traylen wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Corrie Kost wrote:
>
> > I would tend to favour following the Redhat choices for what is loaded
> > by the core distributions. To do otherwise would eventually cause problems.
> Just to second this the absolute ideal as I see it for this is that the core
> version be as much as possible identical to redhat. Including for instance
> bug for bug matches even if they may be trivial to fix.
>
I did not expect this to be contentious and I don't feel that strongly
if people want a "bug for bug match".
Just for the record though, I believe in this instance it is a bug:
See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113485
This bug is fixed in Fedora Core 2. Perhaps it will get fixed in RHEL
also. Maybe it has, I have no way of checking.
Since the packages appropriate for a default scientific workstation will
be substantially different from those for a default corporate desktop it
might be helpful if there were a simple mechanism to produce a good base
scientific workstation, e.g. a list of packages to add/remove.
--
John Franks <[log in to unmask]>
Dept of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ
|
|
|