[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] New task: science-dataacquisition

Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> writes:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2008, Chris Walker wrote:
> > There are also unofficial debs of TANGO - again linked to from the
> > physics wiki. Unfortunately, there is an ITP for another completely
> > unrelated package called tango recently announced on debian-devel.
> Done as prospective package.  Any volunteer to sponsor this package?
> And yes, I have seen the tango ITP - but I do not really remember whether
> somebody stepped in here and discussed the possible name clash.  Please
> anybody interested in tango should do so ...

I have mentioned the name clash on debian-devel, but perhaps not
forcefully enough. 

> > http://mx.iit.edu/ MX - A Data Acquisition and Control System. Is not
> > packaged.
> Done as prospective package.
> > http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/ Experimental Physics and Industrial
> > Control System is used in some particle accelerators, telescopes and
> > other large scientific experments.
> Done as prospective package.
> >>
> >> Depends: gnudatalanguage
> >
> > It isn't clear to me why you think this should be under data
> > acquisition - any more than octave,matplotlib,pdl,scilab,freemat -
> > listed in the "Numerical Computation (MATLAB/IDL like)" section of the
> > physics wiki page[1].

I am, I think, changing my view on this towards "include them all".

I do know that Matlab includes a data acquisition toolkit for example.

The scilab web page mentions a scilab-labview gateway - and GPIB
toolbox amongst others. 

> Well, there is no really strong opinion on my side.  I turned the
> Depends into Suggests.  Feel free to either remove it completely or
> add the other ones as well - depending what you feel reasonable for
> people who want to prepare a computer for data acquisition tasks.

The fundamental question is, would you use it for writing a data
acquisition system, or is it just for analysing data offline (this is
a question, I really don't know). If the former, it should be
included, if the latter, it should not. Given what I've written above,
I suspect it would be useful and therefore should be included.


Reply to: