SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

June 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:42:40 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
On 05/30/2012 04:55 PM, Stefan Lasiewski wrote:
> And for continuity, I'll point out that there was a similar, lengthy
> discussion on this topic in September 2011.
>
> Here is the thread started by Tanmoy Chatterjee:
>
> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1109&L=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS&T=0&I=-3&X=5E3D186375663BCF45&Y=slasiewski%40lbl.gov&P=26572

Is there any reliable summary of this information, rather like a matrix 
that describes characteristics of the relevant EL6 repos?

Examples of matrix columns (assuming the rows lists the repos):

paid professional or volunteer maintained?  (E.g., Fermilab/CERN has 
paid professional staff assigned to SL)

Timeliness of updates (e.g., only TUV based, or fixes/extensions before 
TUV)?

Strict separation of production RPMs from beta RPMs?

Particular emphases?

A matrix or a similar data structure would save all of the time digging 
through a threaded discussion.

Yasha Karant

ATOM RSS1 RSS2