On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:45 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:00 PM, nate <centos at linuxpowered.net> 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