On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Garrett Holmstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/25/2010 14:43, Steve Traylen wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Troy Dawson<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> OK, first problem. >>> This requires wxGTK, which is not in Scientific Linux. >>> Is that an important part? Can it be removed as a dependancy? >>> Do we want to also put that into SL? >> >> Doh, I never thought to check that it actually built on SL without EPEL. >> Will get back to you. > > Adding your own copy of wxGTK instead of using EPEL's will create a > nightmare for anyone who wants to use both your gnuplot42 package and > anything in EPEL that depends on wxGTK. If it doesn't cause any significant > problems, please consider just disabling the bits of gnuplot that rely on > wxGTK so the dependency goes away.
yes I completely agree. > Or people could simply bite the bullet and use two packages from EPEL if > gnuplot42 is that important to them. Less duplication between repositories > means a reduced chance of dependency solving problems for the whole > distribution. http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/gnuplot42/sl/ are new SL5 packages which don't need EPEL. (*) Again if the EPEL review ever gets processed I will release and maintain that at a higher release. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570318 Steve. (*) I think they are okay on SL only but don't have a clean enough system to hand to be sure. Some sl-mock-config packages might make sense. > > -- > Garrett Holmstrom > University of Minnesota School of Physics and Astronomy > Systems Staff > -- Steve Traylen
