Re: debian-science and science-* packages
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
I think a "Recommends" would be better than "Depends", since that allows
one to install, and keep having installed, the meta-packages even if
there are problems with the recommended/dependant packages - which does
happen in unstable.
See me previous comment about new cdd-dev tools. (They just turn
Depends in the tasks files into Recommends.)
* Perhaps `-physics' should recommend `-statistics'.
Well, we will have meta packages that will contain general scientific
tools (statistics, typesetting and viewing in the current suggestion)
which will probably be usefull in every specific science and that
should be in the list of Recommends (or Suggests?).
* The `-astronomy' package should also depend on what-ever
implementation that exists in Debian of `IDL' (Interactive Data
Language). For some odd reason, that language seems popular
among astrologists - sorry astronomers :-)
I wonder whether it might be reasonable to implement a scheme like
science-<x> and science-<x>-dev
while the later contains developent libraries etc. In this case
most probably IDL would go into the science-astronomy-dev dependency
list.
Thanks for your comments
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: