Re: package description rewording discussion
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:37:29PM +0200, Eric Maeker wrote:
> >> shouldn't we rename med-pharmacy to med-pharmacology ?
> >> med-pharmacy make me think:
> >> - "these are package to help manage my personnal pharmacy"
> >> - "these are package to help manage my pharmacy (the place where you go to buy your medics)"
> >
> > That's a correct argument. I'm a bit lazy whith typing, what about
> >
> > med-pharma
>
> If we are trying to keep some constance in package naming:
>
> * med-oncology -> med-pharmacology -> med-biology...
> * med-onco -> med-pharmaco -> med-bio...
I would like to hear the opinion of people working in oncology whether
"onco" is a somehow used abbreviation. I renamed pharmacy to pharma
(because it is shorter, more catchy and not as wrong/missleading
as pharmacy) but the long name in the Metadata is now "Pharmacology".
Hope this is a reasonable compromise.
> An idea to be discussed: What about the 'med-cms'
This one is rather dead and it was intended to support Web content
exclusively.
> package to be
> renamed in 'med-publish' (sounds more scientific) and include bibtex,
> bibliography management tools, any office package (package are done by
> other teams but can be included in the package dependencies)?
That's currently in med-typesetting - I admit publish might be a better
name. More opinions.
> The idea
> behind this hypothesis would be to include in Debian Med specific
> packages dependencies to other packages that are not maintained by the
> team and show these packages in the tasks (with a comment). For
> example, in my current practice I often need a manager of notes...
That's exactly what I mean: Could we define some kind of office tools
(not publication related) which would be a reasonable set for a
practice.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: