On 11/05/2010 01:40 PM, Steve White wrote: > Hi Troy, > > In a discussion last month on sl-devel, two scientific packages > that aren't in EPEL were proposed: > yorick > scilab > Yes, yes, yes. I vote for Scilab as well. Vaclav M. > See > http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1010&L=scientific-linux-devel&T=0&X=0A3B92370D65590DE7&Y=swhite%40aip.de&P=492 > > Cheers! > > > On 2.11.10, Troy Dawson wrote: > >> Hello, >> As was stated before, for Scientific Linux 6, if a package is in EPEL, >> we would like to keep it in EPEL. >> But there are some packages that we feel should go into Scientific >> Linux. This usually because they are needed during the installation >> process, or for some other reason. >> I am trying to gather the list of packages we will need to add. >> Here is what I currently have. >> >> - packages changed/added for trademark reasons and/or branding. >> - SL tweaks packages >> - openafs (it isn't in EPEL) >> - icewm (it isn't in EPEL and it would be good during the install) >> - revisor (will be used for building distributions and sites) >> - firmware - specifically network based firmware >> >> Here is what is in epel thus far. >> http://mirror.anl.gov/fedora/epel/beta/6/ >> >> >