[Add also sci-linux mailing list] Hi Jan, The following is a general comment not specifically related to Rene's questions. On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Jan Iven wrote: > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:41, Rene Brun wrote: > One primary goal of SLC3 is to stay binary compatible with SL3 and with I would actually hope that it is possible to converge on _one_ single distribution rather than two (SL3 _and_ SLC3). Having two >very< similar, but not identical, SL flavors (in addition to RHEL3) is already and will continue to be a source of confusion in the computing centers, some of which are running one and some the other. Given the strong participation of FNAL in CMS (and thus LHC computing), I would hope that we would be able to converge on some mechanism whereby a single distribution (and its updates) can serve the needs of (at least) most of the HEP community. This goal seems _much_ closer than in the past, but we are not quite there. Am I missing something fundamental which prevents us from aiming for that? thanks, Pete > REd Hat Enterprise 3. We have no chance of persuading Red Hat to upgrade > versions in a "stable" release like RHE3 without "heavy" arguments, so > moving everybody forward is very unlikely. If we simply upgrade on SLC3 > (and assuming we stay somehow backward compatible, e.g. with "compat-.." > libraries), we still risk that code compiled at CERN will not run > anywhere else, a major pain for LCG software. So we would need to "hide" > the add-on package in a non-default path, accessible only after a > conscious choice against this RHE3/SL3-compatibility has been taken. But > this is very close to what the LCG SPI installation is (they use AFS, we > could provide RPMs, but the actual result would be the same)... > > This leaves "pestering" Red Hat with bug reports, until they realize > that moving forward is a viable alternative. Which means we would need > each individual problem is a format that can be passed on to Red Hat > (reproducible, clear indication of the circumstances -- 'proper' bug > reports in other words). And initially at least Red Hat would probably > be fixing these via backported patches (but perhaps at a slow pace..). > But at least the whole RHE3/SL3/SLC3 community would benefit from such > fixes. > > > -It looks like XFree86-devel-4.3.0-68.EL.i386.rpm is not installed > > by default. This creates a lot of headaches for many users who were > > used to a default and solid installation of the X11 suite. > > You can find a typical example of complaint at the ROOT Forum; > > http://root.cern.ch/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1823 > > >From what I see, it should get installed by default, at least on SLC3: > > XFree86-devel gets installed if the "CERN Recommended Setup" > installation is chosen (this is the default for interactive > installations), or if any of the following package groups is picked (e.g > for kickstart installs): > X Software Development > GNOME Software Development > KDE Software Development > Development (whole category) > > I tried searching the ROOT forum for XFree86-devel OR x11-devel OR > libX11, but most of the problems seem to be for other distributions > (Mandrake/RH8/RH9/Windows :-). If you have pointers for other cases, > please let me have a look at them - maybe this is more a problem with > SL(not-C)3. > > Regards > Jan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Elmer E-mail: [log in to unmask] Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644 Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland -------------------------------------------------------------------------