[4050] in Release_7.7_team
Re: tetex and the release
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Cattey)
Wed Oct 15 23:35:31 2003
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:39:58 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Cc: William Cattey <wdc@mit.edu>, release-team@mit.edu,
"andrew m. boardman" <amb@mit.edu>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
From: William Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <1065584977.24575.32.camel@error-messages.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <6A1CB586-FF8A-11D7-9B70-000393995C5C@mit.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry to be slow to respond to this.
Greg, you're asking exactly the right question. Getting an answer is
tricky. I think I'll bring the issue to Owls as a first step.
Sometimes its a matter of having had a conversation a few influential
people in the higher eschelons of IS so that there's a consensus on
what the right balance is.
-wdc
On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 11:49 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> Our current plan is to use native Red Hat tetex RPMs for the next
> release, assuming there is a Red Hat release between now and then
> (since
> Red Hat 9 uses an ancient version of tetex, but Rawhide has a current
> version).
>
> Given that plan, it's going to be much harder to make local fixes and
> additions. So, locally adding tex packages right now seems a little
> unwise.
>
> (What's the management take on this? We're supposed to use prepackaged
> stuff when possible instead of rolling our own versions of things, but
> we're also supposed to have a customer focus, and of course we're also
> supposed to reduce costs.)
>
