On Tue, 4 May 2004, csieh wrote:

> Jan,
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jan Iven wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Connie" == Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> >
> >  Connie> Scientific Linux (SL) Release Candidate 2    May 3, 2004
> >  Connie> This is only a summary of the changes made since the release of April 26,
> >  Connie> 2004.
> >
> >  Connie> Release is expected next week.
> >
> > Connie, thanks for all your work and the nice documentation. I feel I
> > owe you some comments, even if I haven't managed to convert our own
> > distribution to SL (yet), lack of time but not of interest.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> > * you are shipping a number of zz_* RPMS in the "base" SL distribution
> >   - I understood that this prefix was actually used for Fermi-specific
> >   customizations in the past, and I wonder whether these should appear
> >   in the general release:
> >
>
> All of the zz's that we included are of a "general" nature.  Most fix bugs
> that any audience will need.  Also most are NOT installed by default.
> Letting the end user decide.
>
> The zz prefix was used for all the "fixes" that we did.  The original
> reason for zz was that the installer on the "old" releases did not have
> enough of a "requires,prereq" function and in alot of cases we needed
> these to be installed after "something".  The installer installed things
> that is did not have any special ordering in alphabetical order.  And
> "zz" is very far down the alphabet.  And if they all have the same naming
> covention it is easy to find them.  Some RPMS we fix by fixing the
> "original" rpm.  I do not like this way as much as they "fixit" rpms
> mostly because "the original was changed" and many seem to have a problem
> with that.  You also have to keep up with the change when errata come out.
> With the "fixit" rpms  the change is very contained.
>
> >   zz_desktop_tweeks-1.1-1
> >   zz_inittab_change-1.0-4
> >   zz_kernel_clean-1.0-2
> >   zz_libg2c.a_change-3.2.3-1
> >   zz_no_colorls-1.0-1
> >   zz_sendmail_accept-1.0-2
> >
> > * You also seem to have a number of RedHat-compiled RPMs in the
> >   distribution, which could be problematic because of the "update service
> >   license" for Red Hat Enterprise. I haven't checked whether all of these
> >   RPMs come directly from RHE3 (but at least some like xfig do, same timestamps):
> >
> > rpm -qp --nosignature --qf "%-30{NAME}\t%{VENDOR}\t%{BUILDHOST}\n" linux/scientific/30rolling/i386/SL/RPMS/*rpm | grep -i "redhat" | wc -l
> >  300
>
> These did NOT come from RHE3 they came from RedHat 9.  Same exact rpm as

They really came from Fermi Linux 90x.

-Connie Sieh
> shown by diff.  If you look at the date of the rpm you will see that they
> are from the RedHat 9 time frame.  RedHat did NOT recompile them for
> RHE3 they got them from RedHat 9.  Since RedHat 9 is freely distributatble
> then I can put them in and so I did.
>
>  >
> > I suggest at least to check whether all of these are "legal" to ship
> > (coming e.f from Fedora), and perhaps replace them with e.g. the
> > CERN-recompiled ones from http://linuxsoft/cern/cel3/i386/RedHat/RPMS/
>
> I was hoping that you would provide us with the AMD-64 and maybe itanium
> rpms as we are kind of short of development hardware in these
> areas.
>
> >
> > Best regards
> > jan
> >
>
> -Connie Sieh
>