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/
>>
>>      
>