On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Troy Dawson wrote:


> *What should we add to SL6
> At the last Hepix meeting one of the discussions was that many
> scientists are adding their packages to EPEL.  They would like it if
> packages that are in EPEL stay just in EPEL and not go into SL unless
> there is a good reason for it.
> A good reason would be that it is needed during the install.
> I like this idea and would like to adopt it.
> This would mean that we would take out several packages that have
> traditionally been in earlier SL releases, but I think it will make
> things better and more consistent in the long run.
> This way scientists would be able to know they are getting the same
> packages whether they are running SL, RHEL or CentOS.
> Thoughts on this proposal?

I hadn't realized that SL was RHEL + bits of EPEL.
What EPEL packages have been added to SL5
- or how do I find out what they are ?

[ So far I've had a preference for dag, rpmforge and freshrpms over
   EPEL and found enough conflicts (duplicates) to be unhappy about
   turning EPEL on except in very specific cases. I'm worried that
   with your proposal I'd have to use EPEL much more often and that
   that would mean preferring EPEL to DAG.
   But I don't have a good justification for or measure of why I don't
   like EPEL, so the first thing would be for me to see whether taking
   EPEL out of SL removes things I need.
]

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