On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate <centos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> For what it's worth, I like both CentOS and Debian. (Heck, I even like
> openSUSE as an OS, but I'm not crazy about Novel's smooching with
> Microsoft.)
---
Not crazy about smooching huh? Ever bother to really research the facts?
RedHat and MS are parteners! In the Virtualization area and more.
JohnStanley
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
