On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, John Hearns wrote: > Jaroslaw Polok wrote: > I had hoped the HPC community could have a scientifically "branded" distro > on which to base technical computing, ie. you might hope that vendors of > commercial packages could see the light and certify their packages on SL. I see very little benifit in having a seperate "branded" distro for that. seems like a lot of effort. A "branded" installer which installs baseOS + addon repo... now that make sense. LSB is what we should be asking vendors to certify against and ask Linux distros to certify against. Then we have choice. > Remember the Pine saga. Pine was ditched by all the main distros, yet had a > big following in HEP. > Your point about having an 'extras' repository with HEP specific packages, > e.g Cernlibs, pine etc. would take care of that of course. Oh yes... of course pine was "ditched" because it was illeagal to distrubute as I recall (which seems like a good reason to me)... so even a seperate repository is no good there. However Alpine (from the same stable as pine) is apache licenced so will be in distros: http://www.washington.edu/alpine/ http://packages.debian.org/alpine Alex Owen