Hi Connie,

I would prefer to have options available which allows for the
untampered distributions for custom, personal desktop, workstation and server
as distributed by Redhat. The default could be the "fixed" versions of these.
However, my support for your good work is not contingent on this.

Corrie Kost




csieh wrote:
[log in to unmask]"> 
John,

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, John Franks wrote:

  
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 11:09, Steve Traylen wrote:
    
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Corrie Kost wrote:

      
I would tend to favour following the Redhat choices for what is loaded
by the core distributions. To do otherwise would eventually cause problems.
        
Just to second this the absolute ideal as I see it for this is that the core
version be as much as possible identical to redhat. Including for instance
bug for bug matches even if they may be trivial to fix.

      
I did not expect this to be contentious and I don't feel that strongly
if people want a "bug for bug match".
    

I sure do not want all the RedHat bugs.

  
Just for the record though, I believe in this instance it is a bug:
See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113485

This bug is fixed in Fedora Core 2.  Perhaps it will get fixed in RHEL
also.  Maybe it has, I have no way of checking.

Since the packages appropriate for a default scientific workstation will
be substantially different from those for a default corporate desktop it
might be helpful if there were a simple mechanism to produce a good base
scientific workstation, e.g. a list of packages to add/remove.

    

Clearly things can be done here that will NOT break the "core" packages of
binary compatability.  In this case the packages already exist.  The only
question is if they are installed by default.  Note that there are 4
"group" choices.  There are custom, personal desktop, workstation and
server.  It would be appropriate to add these tetex changes to
workstation.

  
--
John Franks <[log in to unmask]>
Dept of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ

    

-Connie Sieh