Re: How much interest in a "debian-science.org" repository?
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty:
[..]
> 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
I heavily vote against this.
> Maybe some packages could be made available under more than one field
And this is the reason. It would make it more complicated to get or even
_find_ packages.
> (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?
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.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: