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.
> One can always adapt local installations to make additions say to the
> standard "workstation" distribution but they should not be forced unto
> core users. With the low price of disks we at TRIUMF load "everything" using
> the "custom" choice. It just makes upgraded easier as well as maintain a
> single
> site standard - and  has many more tools available should one ever need
> them.
>
> So please do not let the defaults drift away from what Redhat does for
> their distribution.
>
> Corrie Kost
> TRIUMF

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.

   Steve

>
> John Franks wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been experimenting with SL which I expect we will adopt for a
>> group of departmental workstations.
>>
>> I noticed that with a "Personal Desktop" install the main tetex packages
>> are installed but not tetex-latex (and I think tetex-xdvi or tetex-dvips
>> -- I don't remember which -- was also missing).  With a "workstation"
>> install tetex-latex is also not included.  Is this intentional or just
>> reflecting a RedHat choice?
>>
>> It may be that there are instances when one would want tex installed and
>> not latex, but I would expect this to be the exception rather than the
>> rule.
>>
>> --
>> John Franks <[log in to unmask]>
>> Dept of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Steve Traylen
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/