Re: How much interest in a "debian-science.org" repository?
On 7/19/06, Carlo Segre <segre@iit.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> I would hope that it would also foster collaborative maintenance of the
> packages too. Having a single source for source packages as well as the
> binaries would be great. Maybe even some svn repos for maintaining the
> packaging. On that thought, would Alioth be of any help for this?
>
I think that Alioth would only be good for packages which could go into
main.
That reminds me of another question I had. Maybe it's too early to
bring up but I'll ask it anyway.
What would be the best way to organize the archive by section? The
usual divisions "main contrib non-free" are fine for Debian, but one
of the main reasons an unofficial repository is needed is the
often-poor state of care to licenses in scientific software that makes
them unsuitable for Debian's archive. Probably the only software in
"main" in the repo would be either things undergoing testing on their
way to the Debian official archive, or Free software that's too
obscure to package for Debian. (I'm thinking of CERN's "patchy" as an
example for the latter.)
So I was thinking perhaps a division by field makes more sense -
"analysis astronomy biology chemistry physics" etc. A typical
sources.list line might then look something like
deb http://www.debian-science.org/ physics analysis
Maybe some packages could be made available under more than one field
(e.g. ROOT under both physics and analysis)? After all, ROOT and
(e.g.) PAW aren't intrinsically physics software (unlike say GEANT),
they're just traditionally used by physicists. Comments?
--
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Reply to: