Re: How much interest in a "debian-science.org" repository?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: