Re: Welcome to Debian Astronomy!
Hi Ole,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
> PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr>
> writes:
> > It is true that debian-science is quite fragile (so many package which
> > require very specific competencies) and that this sort of specialize
> > blend can fragment the initial effort.
>
> I would see it quite the other way around: Having specialized blends
> would actually attract people and interest from this field and therefore
> help in maintaining the packages.
+1
I know different science related Blends (Debian Med, DebiChem, Debian
GIS) and for any of them several people are lurking on Debian Science.
I also think that if we are able to attract more astronomers to Debian
a share of them might join Debian Science as well - but the people who
are "grown up" inside Debian Science will probably not leave it.
> Can you be more specific on what you mean with the danger of
> fragmentation? As an astronomer, I am also a scientist, and therefore
> would feel as a part of the scientific computing approach of
> Debian. But: as debian-astro, we may also get amateurs which may not
> count themself as scientists.
I also think you get additional scientists since they learn that there
is *relevant* stuff for them amongst all this large topic science.
> > I am wondering if this sort of blend should not be sort of satellite
> > of debian-science using dedicated mailling if the traffic is to big
> > but for the rest use the debian-science infrastructure (especially the
> > repositories) to avoid this fragmentation.
>
> [moved from top]
> > picca@moszumanska:/git/debian-science/packages$ ls -l | wc
> > 429 3856 34878o Debian Astronomy!
>
> For me, browsing the git repository is already a pain, these are far too
> much packages in one directory. Having them in a separate dir would be
> nice, without caring of whether this is a subdir of debian-science or
> not.
>
> What should be done in your opinion to have debian-astro as a
> "satellite" of debian-science instead of having it independently?
>
> > I like the fact that we can create dedicated blends (web site and
> > packages thanks to Andreas works) but I do not feel confident to
> > maintain a dedicated repository for these blends.
>
> In git, each package has its own repository. What is the difference
> whether a repository is in /git/debian-science of in /git/debian-astro?
> What kind of "maintenance" do you mean here?
>
> I would draw some more attention to the Policy, where debian-astro
> should not deviate too much from debian-science.
I personally think that Debian Science policy is a bit poorly
maintained. My feeling is that amongst the lot of people nobody really
feels obliged to work for a document that is dedicated to explain
newcomers how to join the team. I think when working on a policy
document for Debian Astro the astronomers might find a lot of stuff that
could be merged back. Usually I recomment the Debian Med policy as
template but a recent effort in Debian GIS[1] makes me wonder whether
this document should rather be the best current template. On the other
hand: *If* (and only if) Debian Science could provide the best advise to
newcomers which is always up to date other team policies could create
their documents simply via some sed replacement regexps.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/policy.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: