Re: Debian Math Team
Hi Andrius,
Am Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 01:56:56PM +0200 schrieb Andrius Merkys:
> > Blends categorisation is *not* exclusive. One package can be in two or
> > more Blends (and we have lots of examples for this).
>
> ACK. However, team categorization is exclusive.
If you call organisation of team maintained packacges a categorisation
than yes, it is exclusive. I personally would not use the term
categorisation here.
> > So it is our task to run around and tell users. I'm doing so for many
> > years[5]. You should point users to relevant tasks pages. Why do you
> > think I started writing that code (luckily I've got help by several
> > others) and was keen on adding things like citations etc.? It is to
> > make users aware that there is extra value.
>
> From my experience users usually know which packages they want to
> install. The fact that a certain piece of software is not packaged for
> Debian rarely instigates them to search for Debian-provided
> alternatives. Thus they turn to snap/conda/deb-from-web. Task pages are
> really nice and they help a lot when one looks for Debian-provided
> package for a task they want to achieve. But from my experience users
> most of the time know exactly (= software name) what they want.
I've seen users who tried hard to install some software manually who did
not even checked the Debian package pool and thus did not found what was
just an `apt install` away. I admit that's not the usual case but most
users I asked whether they like the software they need as a package
confirmed this.
> > At least I did not misunderstood you that way. I just want to stress
> > that I expect that a Debian Math team can do similar positive things
> > than other teams ... and they can do this better if not hidden inside
> > Debian Science IMHO.
>
> I do not think that anything in debian-science is hidden :)
In the sense of "hard to find" inside the to less specific tasks the
packages are not so prominently presented. Hidden is surely the wrong
word.
> > Looking at that page I see its again outdated (Debian Astro is missing and
> > Ezgo is dead) and should be overworked. Its a good sign that nobody is
> > reading those docs and thus its not very motivating to keep it updated.
>
> Thanks for providing this historical background to me. It helps me
> understand the further fragmentation of debian-science has been foreseen
> at its creation. I however see some disadvantages of such fragmentation
> (and seemingly I am not alone), but surely I do not want to block the
> progress. Maybe just instigate a discussion about how certain aspects
> could be done even better.
As always. ;-)
Kind regards
Andreas.
> >>> [1]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/
> >>> [2]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/uploaders_r-pkg.png
> >>> [3]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/commitstat_pkg-r.png
> >>
> >> [4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2021/11/msg00016.html
> >
> > [5] https://people.debian.org/~tille/talks/
> > [6] https://blends.debian.org/blends/ch04.html#debian-science
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: