SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2016

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:
R P Herrold <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
R P Herrold <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:56:53 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote:


> Thank you very much for providing the above URLs.
>
> From the above reference web site, I am guessing that only
> orc7 (owlriver 7) extension files are needed for SL 7, in
> which case here is the list of what I have downloaded:

no idea if your guess is right, and checking my binary solve
environment is not something that is fast or free -- SRPMs are
offered for what they are. If the main distribution, or
something EPEL should happen to 'overtake' and
displace something in that pile while running a 'yum update
...' it would be fine with me, as I strive, but to not test
that

> Are there other files that are needed other than those
> provided in the "standard" EL7 public repos? (I believe
> that the Red Hat subscriber repos are not readily available
> to the non-paying, only CentOS repos under the Red Hat
> "umbrella".)

The Red Hat provided 'git' which CentOS is fed from may be
used to build SRPMs seemingly without change by the CentOS
folks
 
> By the way, as a university (not a business), are we allowed
> to redistribute binary RPMS made from the above .src.rpm
> files with the usual acknowledgement (thanking you and your
> firm, but no guarantee that anything works and no guarantee
> that the binaries will not "destroy" any system upon which
> these are installed)? If we do build from your .src.rpm s
> and things work, why should others have re-invent the wheel
> and/or redo the labor?

umm -- at the top of the archive:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/README

(go read -- I'll wait)

I add no non-freely licensed content to the archive at:
ftp.owlriver.com

all is redistributable save that something might be
retro-actively found as containing non-free matter. As I
don't patrol for that, I would not remove such (There was an
instance some years ago where an upstream CD respin was
needed when non-free content was found in (as memory serves) a
non-free font was found in RHL. I would miss seeing that]

-- Russ herrold

ATOM RSS1 RSS2