Re: New science section
I wrote:
>>> What do people think of my calls? Should all plotting
>>> packages go in science?
Drake Diedrich <Drake.Diedrich@anu.edu.au> writes:
>> 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.
Mike Miller wrote:
> IMHO, it is more intuitive to look in the science section for
> data plotters than in the math section. Plotting routines that
> are only capable of plotting functions may belong in math, but
> anything that can also plot data points should definitely go into
> science.
That was my thinking. Only experienced Debian users would know
to look in math for gnuplot or gri (data plotters). With the
advent of the science section, I expect new users would look
there first.
But I can see concensus may not be easy to reach.
BTW, http://www.debian.org/Packages/unstable/science still does
not exist.
Peter
Reply to: