Re: Bug#672480: ITP: prooftree -- proof tree visualization for Proof General
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 09:52:32PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:33:01PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > Regarding the split into separate meta-packages: While I agree that
> > > science-mathematics becomes a bit crowded I'm not fully sure that we
> > > should keep on maintaining mathematical packages under the Debian
> > > Science umbrella. I'd rather vote for some math-* tasks which enables
> > > mor fine grained tasks (same probably for physics).
> > >
> > > Any opinions?
> > ScienceLogic  would be more appropriate, IMHO, in particular when
> > ScienceMathematics is getting crowded.
> >  http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/Logic
> I don't care for the name - I care for
> 1. the code (for instance in terms of Blends metadata)
> 2. people who are doing the work
> I Wiki is finally not helpfull becuase it has no structured data, needs
( s/^I/A/ ; s/becuase/because/ )
One further remark because may be there is a missunderstanding:
It might be reasonable to turn the content of the Wiki above in just
another task in the Debian Science scope (feel free to ask me if I
did not yet explained detailed enough how to do this).
However, what I was suggesting in the mail quoted above was not to
create single tasks but rather another Blend with a reasonable set
of tasks which does not need more than a hand full of people who
somehow feel responsible to work on this. You can count me into this
number of people but I will not do it alone