Re: New science section
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:38:20AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > xtide 2.1.99dev1-1 provides tide and current predictions
> > > > proj 4.3.3-1 Cartographic projection filter and library
> > >
> > > These two should go into science, IMHO. All of the chemistry, biology,
> > > geography, history, philosophy ( ;) ) etc related things should go into
> > > "science", not 'misc' nor 'math'.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Well, I think this is settled then. Upload packages with fixed 'Section:'
> control fields and tell ftpadmin@ to move them in place.
I replied to ftpmasters' email as requested. I'm also requesting
the moving of my data plotters (gri and xplot).
> > How about data and map plotters and libraries?
> > (When I started using Debian at bo, we didn't have many of these.
> > It's incredible how many we now have!)
> [snip 27 packages names/descriptions]
>
> I'm not sure. What would be left in 'math' if we moved all these to
> 'science'? :)
A lot!
Math should have (IMHO):
spreadsheet programs
heavy math research tools
Calculators
Geometry stuff
Statistical toolsK should be in math.
MathLab-like stuff.
Science should have:
netcdf
data plotters
> > Of the above, probably octave-plplot should stay in `math'
> > alongside octave.
>
> Why not move it (if moving at all)? We have several packages from same
> sources or for similar purposes that are in different sections.
You're right.
> > An annoying thing is the lack of a standard on where to put -doc
> > packages. Do they all go in the `doc' section, or do they stay
> > in the same section as the package they document?
>
> No policy there, IIRC. But documentation should go to 'doc', regardless
> of what it's about. IMHO, of course.
I wish this were enforced.
Peter
Reply to: