On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 14:43, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Troy Dawson<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, first problem.
>>> This requires wxGTK, which is not in Scientific Linux.
>>> Is that an important part?  Can it be removed as a dependancy?
>>> Do we want to also put that into SL?
>>
>> Doh, I never thought to check that it actually built on SL without EPEL.
>> Will get back to you.
>
> Adding your own copy of wxGTK instead of using EPEL's will create a
> nightmare for anyone who wants to use both your gnuplot42 package and
> anything in EPEL that depends on wxGTK.  If it doesn't cause any significant
> problems, please consider just disabling the bits of gnuplot that rely on
> wxGTK so the dependency goes away.

yes I completely agree.

> Or people could simply bite the bullet and use two packages from EPEL if
> gnuplot42 is that important to them.  Less duplication between repositories
> means a reduced chance of dependency solving problems for the whole
> distribution.

http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/gnuplot42/sl/

are new SL5 packages which don't need EPEL. (*)

Again if the EPEL review ever gets processed I will release and maintain that
at a higher release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570318

  Steve.

(*) I think they are okay on SL only but don't have a clean enough
system to hand to be
    sure. Some sl-mock-config packages might make sense.

>
> --
> Garrett Holmstrom
> University of Minnesota School of Physics and Astronomy
> Systems Staff
>



-- 
Steve Traylen