R P Herrold wrote:
> oh please -- move advocacy to a new thread raher than
> hijacking. Quantity does not imply quality, and AWOL
> maintainers who move on is a problem in all of FOSS
Quality is implied by the hefty QA process debian goes
through, and the long release cycles. I thought I had
communicated that in the previous message. The last two
major releases took almost 2 years of work each. Similar
to the QA that Red Hat does, which is why their base packages
are solid and well tested. This same level of QA of course
doesn't apply to 3rd party repos.
> and so R-2.9.0 is not available to you, and if your users
> wanted R-xts, to extend zoo [which extends R], the only place
> for those packages in Debian packaging are r-forge and CRAN
> (as they are not in any 'official' Debian archive, and only
> in the independents).
The users will have to make do with what there is. The same
is true for CentOS/RHEL on my systems. I can't remember the
last time I went to CPAN. I did maintain a couple dozen ruby
on rails packages at my last company for the systems there,
everything built by hand, it wasn't easy, or fun.
nate
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
