[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Avogadro and shogun something for us?

Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 13:21 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> There is no reason to leave out a package in Biology just because it
> is primarily targeting at chemists.  The rationale behind our work
> is *not* finding proper categories where a package might fit in general
> but whether it is of use for a certain user category.  (A package is
> not like a book that can sit only in one shelf - either chemestry or
> biology - it might be useful in more than one working field.)

Sure. I just wanted to express that there is not much sense in having a
task that is effectively the combination of two or more other tasks.

> Do you want to suggest a med-biochemestry or med-bio-structural
> package?

I did not suggest that since I wasn't sure if that makes sense. I'd have
to look at the package list in more detail. I might make sense, though,
to have them distinct since the area of overlap is usually small. I'll
have a look at it. (If I have some spare cycles not related to MPI.)

Best regards

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: