On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Troy Dawson wrote:

> Looks like we didn't get enough testing done, and maybe rrdtool doesn't 
> really need to be in the plain SL release.
>
> I have no problem pulling it out of the release and having people just 
> install it from dag or EPEL, whichever they prefer.  Since it hasn't gotten 
> into any final release, this isn't that much of a problem, I just need to 
> take it out of the repositories.
>
> Does anyone *really* need it in the release?  Is there any real reasons why 
> people can't get it from dag and/or EPEL after they are installed?
>
> Troy
>
> p.s. Just so you know, we didn't test it with every EPEL package.  When I 
> said that "these packages are compatible with both epel and dag" I was 
> meaning the rrdtool package.  It was packaged in the EPEL fashion and naming 
> convention, with provides statements so that it worked and updated corrected 
> with the dag repository.

If these packages *need* the particular version of rrdtool
I suggest that it might not be ready for an SL release.
If they only have tight dependencies because the package build
put precise version into the package, then those packages
ought to be remade.

So no, I don't feel that SL needs to have rrdtool.

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna