Re: debian-science and science-* packages
2007/8/28, Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>
> > The problem could be, that `-physics' is just a tad too broad - maybe
> > (and only maybe) it needs to be split up into parts (-nanoscience, -hep,
> > -theory, -bio, -solid, ...) with some `-physics-common' recommended
>
> We all know that every science has several flavours. If you want to
> reflact this in meta packages we will end up with many meta packages
> with zero to two dependant packages which just makes no sense at all.
> Just live with some extra installed packages after installing a general
> science-physics package or remove the unneeded stuff afterwards.
>
while I agree we have many flavours of physicists, I also think
-physics is too broad.
If I could classify physicists that use computers in the least number
of packages I would suggest something like physics-developers (to whom
that number-crunching and compile your own code), physics-experimental
(data reduction,etc.) and theoretical (symbolic computation, octave,
etc.). LaTeX and Gnuplot go into physics-common ;)
I think this scheme could be applied to other fields as well.
--
Thadeu Penna
Prof.Associado - Instituto de Física
Universidade Federal Fluminense
http://profs.if.uff.br/tjpp/blog
Reply to: