Amit Saha (droidery(a)gmail.com) said:
>>Seems like a generally reasonable idea. I'd suggest
iterating with
>>the SciTech SIG over what they'd like to see in a spin, if you haven't
>>already.
>
>Thanks for showing interest. Before I emailed Rel-eng, I had emailed the
>the SciTech SIG list. Soon after, I saw on the mailman page that the
>mailing list was de-activated. It would ofcourse be great to co-ordinate
>with this SIG for this effort. Would there be a contact person?
Whoops,didn't know it was inactive. I'd suggest then posting to devel@;
there are plenty of people from the SciTech SIG page that are active there,
and they may have some ideas.
>>With respect to the composition, I would suggest maybe seeing
if you
>>could frame it in terms of the groups we already have (engineeirng&
>>scientific, development), more than in terms of just packages. For
>>Fedora 16, we can certainly adjust the groups where necessary.
>
>Yes, that is what I initially intended to do. Let me check this up and
>report my findings.
At this point of time, it doesn't look like I can use any of the
existing package groups to design the kickstart file (except the
ones I include from -desktop.ks).
Current packages in "Engineering and Scientific" group can be split
into sub-groups: math, chemistry, physics, biology,
geographic,distributed, parallel and generic packages. Quite
exhaustive! (If such a sub-division sounds like a good idea, I can
do that.)
My goal in creating a Fedora Scientific spin is however to create a
"base" level scientific spin which can be used by anyone working in
research so that he/she already has the minimum writing, plotting,
experimenting tools available when he/she starts. The current
kickstart file can be seen at [1]. The ISO file stands at 1.2 G.
Would it be possible to make the mandatory packages in Eng&Scientific
your selected packages,and have the others listed as optional?
Bill