Miles O'Neal wrote:
John Summerfield said...
|> That's fine until you start using a different version of
|> a package than the vendor uses. Maybe there's a way around
|> that in yum; I haven't really figured yum out yet. Is there
|> a *good* doc on yum out there that explains such things?
|>
|
|Where are the equivalent documents for SL{3,4}?
SL Docs Howtos: https://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/howto/create.site
|I'm not sure I understand the question, and "site" is awfully vague.
Sites are a feature of the SL distribution. Someone there
noted they're the same for SL5.
An unfortunate choice of words.
If you can find instructions for customising Fedora Core 6, then you
could follow those; they would be basically the same. The CentOS project
too has good documentation.
|_I_ don't like adding different versions of packages than the vendor
|provides as it instantly increases the maintenance burden; RH does a
|fairly good job of maintaining the packages it offers, and the cloners
|such as SL mostly do a good job of tracking that maintenance and of
|maintaining their own additions.
I don't, either, but we don't always have a choice.
Since we chose to go with SL instead of RH, getting
RH to change something isn't an option. If they
don't upgrade (and they don't unless they have to
since one of the main reasons for EL is stability)
then SL isn't likely to, either.
You should check whether the packages you need are already built for
RHEL5 by someone else, CentOS is likely.
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
