Re: Second round (Was: Packages maintained by Debian Science maintainers but missing in tasks files)
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 09:11:13PM +0100, Andreas B. Mundt wrote:
> Many thanks for your work, I apologize for being late. I was kind of
> "trapped in the winter months" ...
:-)
> I am not sure how to handle my packages best:
>
> > source | bin | changed_by
> > ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------
> > libticables | libticables-dev, libticables2-6, libticables2-dbg | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > libticalcs | libticalcs-dev, libticalcs2-11, libticalcs2-11-dbg | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > libticonv | libticonv-dev, libticonv7, libticonv-dbg | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > libtifiles | libtifiles-dev, libtifiles2-9, libtifiles2-9-dbg | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > tiemu | tiemu | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > tilem | tilem, tilem-data | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
> > tilp2 | tilp2 | Andreas B. Mundt <andi@debian.org>
>
>
> They are all related to the Texas Instruments calculators, either as
> emulator or to communicate with the actual device.
>
> So they might be useful in many scientific fields, engineering,
> physics and mathematics fit, but also data acquisition and probably
> some more.
>
> On the other hand, someone really working in those fields uses a much
> more flexible and convenient PC today. In addition, there has not
> been much upstream development for quite some time now, and I fear
> that sooner or later the hardware will disappear, as will the
> software.
>
> We could add the packages to quite a lot of tasks or create a new
> task, perhaps like "scientific-tools" or "scientific-devices".
I think somehow into the direction of science-devices but I'm not yet
happy with this name. I think devices could also be some electron
microscopes, cyclotrons etc. On the other hand science-tools usually
sounds like software tools to my personal perception.
> Or we could ignore them as they are already on their way to retire
> from being used widely (and with, vanishing upstream support, should
> not be recommended more than needed).
Well, I guess you had your reasons to add these packages to the Debian
package pool (recently). I think it makes some sense to follow the
metapackages strategy since it increases the awareness of users on one
hand and enables us to use QA tools on the other hand.
> Any suggestions?
Other opinions
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: