Re: Psychology task
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 02:55:27PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 01:36:34PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > Hmmm,, Psychology is muuuuch broader (being bold here since I am
> > Psychologist ;-)
>
> The fact that you see a need to be bold seems like you might have
> suffered some kind of discrimination about this in the past.
Not at all ;-) But typically Psychology is not perceived in its
entirety.
> I hope you will agree with me that there is at least a common set
> between psychology and health care - let's talk about this here
> please.
Sure there are psychology people working in health care, as they are
working in schools, the aerospace industry, or preventing crazy people
from getting their driver's license back ;-)
<snip>
> > > BTW, technically we might try to crosslink the tasks dependencies
> > > as Debian Science is doing it with med-bio.
> >
> > Yes, that sounds good -- is there an established way already?
>
> Just have a look at
>
> svn://svn.debian.org/blends/projects/science/trunk/debian-science/tasks/biology
>
> It defines a dependes from med-bio, a suggets med-bio-dev and even
> adds another dependency (bauble) which is actially not interesting
> for medical care but definitely classifies for biology. IMHO this
> is a perfect example for your case. This work perfectly with
> meta package creation to not duplicate the work of the Debian Med
> team.
Thanks for the pointer. This approach, however, needs thought about what
is egg and what is hen. a -med task referenced in -science implies that
the former is a subset of the later. You started it in -med hence you
would consider the healthcare-related pieces a subset of science? Or
would you intend another relationship if a -science task would be
started?
Michael
--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke
ICQ: 48230050
Reply to: