Miles O'Neal wrote:
> John Summerfield said...
> 
> |> That's fine until you start using a different version of
> |> a package than the vendor uses.  Maybe there's a way around
> |> that in yum; I haven't really figured yum out yet.  Is there
> |> a *good* doc on yum out there that explains such things?
> |> 
> |
> |Where are the equivalent documents for SL{3,4}?
> 
> SL Docs Howtos: https://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/howto/create.site
> 
> |I'm not sure I understand the question, and "site" is awfully vague.
> 
> Sites are a feature of the SL distribution.  Someone there
> noted they're the same for SL5.

An unfortunate choice of words.

If you can find instructions for customising Fedora Core 6, then you 
could follow those; they would be basically the same. The CentOS project 
too has good documentation.

> 
> |_I_ don't like adding different versions of packages than the vendor 
> |provides as it instantly increases the maintenance burden; RH does a 
> |fairly good job of maintaining the packages it offers, and the cloners 
> |such as SL mostly do a good job of tracking that maintenance and of 
> |maintaining their own additions.
> 
> I don't, either, but we don't always have a choice.
> Since we chose to go with SL instead of RH, getting
> RH to change something isn't an option.  If they
> don't upgrade (and they don't unless they have to
> since one of the main reasons for EL is stability)
> then SL isn't likely to, either.

You should check whether the packages you need are already built for 
RHEL5 by someone else, CentOS is likely.


Cheers
John

-- spambait
[log in to unmask]  [log in to unmask]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)