Re: How much interest in a "debian-science.org" repository?
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 01:32, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 21.07.2006, 00:03 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> [directory/section structure proposal - freedom vs research field]
> > > I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section model. This
> > > would also help to see, which packages might be worth a try to get them
> > > into Debian officially, which should be the goal in every case.
> >
> > An answer in this thread said, scientist often don't care about
> > licenses. And often they are allowed to do so. Often applications have
> > exceptions for non-commercial use or usage for research tasks. The
> > latter is easily proven when working for an institute or university.
> > As a conclusion, separating science applications into
> > main/contrib/non-free does not make much sense in these cases.
>
> Well, scientists (=users here) are not those guys, who will have a look,
> which packages might be worth (and allowed) to put into Debian. So this
> is not related to what I said.
>
But this seems to be important and as far as I understood the main
suggestion of this thread: "Collect the science software at one place
and avoid spreading over several sites with a handful software only".
I assume that's the base for the request to have an overall repository.
Researcher and students and private persons are allowed to not care.
Licenses often contain exceptions for these users allowing free usage
for 'non-profit, non-commercial, education, research, ...'.
With your answer I have the feeling you proof the prejudice of users
"debian is from DDs for DDs and professional sysadmins ignoring the
common user or the user who is faced with the admin when looking into a
mirror".
That's the summary I hear between the lines when talking with others and
reading different kinds of Linux related journals.
> > As scientist I can put the most into main.
>
> No. That is completely wrong. What can go into main, is clearly written
> in the policy.
>
I think you mix pieces of different puzzles here. For new
'devian-science.org' there is no policy established. I understand this
thread to find one. You are talking about the debian policy for
complete releases. It has the word 'debian' but also shall include at
least ubuntu and maybe others based on debian initially.
> > So a high level classification into something like libraries, plotting,
> > visualisation, WEB, GUI, common, ... (only a collection of items as
> > example) would be more appropriate I think.
>
> This is IMHO the job of debtags, and not the job of the repository. And
> creating a "high level classification" directory structure, will make it
> more complicated, to find a package (see, how many entries you must put
> into a single sources.list to get an overview, what packages are
> available). I disagree to such a model.
>
Yes, profit from 'debtags' I also suggested somewhere in this thread.
To get more specific, something similar to
http://alioth.debian.org/softwaremap/trove_list.php
would fit. It list projects by classification.
Looking at alioth, I wonder why you refuse a classification system
because of too complicated.
Also, someone in this thread already suggested alioth as host candidate.
There seems only a lttle bit of fine classification necessary as there
is only 'Science' bit no sub classes of science for special purpose SW.
Kind Regards,
Thomas
Reply to: