Re: New science section
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 10:32:48AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> What do people think of my calls?
> Should all plotting packages go in science?
I'm inclined to think non-science-specific data plotters don't really
belong in science. The way I see the section used is to hold packages that
are specific to a field (biology, chemistry, physics, geology,
oceanography,...), so that scientists can skip right to the science section
and browse there. For everyone else the science section gets those big
cumbersome useless packages out of the more general use sections. If we
move to a deeper hierarchy the science section will have natural lines to
subdivide along. CD packagers could also decide to put science on the last
CD with other very optional packages, perhaps saving most people one extra
exchange. If we move to a core CD and optional sets science would be a
natural optional set.
Do math and computer science packages belong? The only such programs I
can see moving to science would be those that you need a degree to be able
to use. math/ still looks good for plotters, libraries, algebra packages,
etc (stuff that many people use, not just mathemeticians). The parallel
libraries are now serving dependencies and should probably stay in libs/ and
devel/. They've moved beyond research.
-Drake
Reply to: