On Friday 13 July 2007 14:50, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Michael Hannon wrote:
> > Hi, folks.  I notice that the RPM's for gsl and gsl-devel no longer seem
> >  to be included in SL 5.0.
> >
> > I.e., on a system running SL 4.4 the "Vendor" for the gsl packages is
> > "Scientific Linux", but on a 5.0 system the "Vendor" is "ATrpms.net".
> > See the appended.
> >
> > I'm perfectly happy to use Axel's repository, but I wonder: why the
> > change?  It introduces a slight non-uniformity into one of our
> > procedures.
>
> TUV decided to not include gsl.
>
> Is the issue of "non-uniformity"  because some of your programs come
> from ATrpms.net and some from SL ?
>
> Since gsl is clearly related to "science" we will research the inclusion
> of it in the next SL5.
>
> -connie
>

Hi:

If we're on the subject of packages deleted by TUV, but expected by 
scientists, I'd nominate xemacs and mozilla as well.

I've managed to build them for our use here, but it sure would be preferable 
to have them part of the distribution rather than having to hunt down source 
rpms from various Fedora releases and then hack at the spec files.

I realize that the big issue with these "addon" packages is long-term 
maintenance, but the removal of these packages from the distribution is a 
little alarming.  Someone here even mentioned that there was talk of removing 
emacs!  Imagine that.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Anderson    			| [log in to unmask]
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory	| 
Office: 50A-5104E			| Mailstop 50A-5101
Phone: 510 486-4208			| Fax: 510 486-6808