1 |
On Monday 30 January 2006 06:35, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: |
2 |
> Apparently it's more than a "proposal" ... tonight's "emerge --sync" |
3 |
> moved some packages, breaking some ebuilds in the process. I haven't dug |
4 |
> into it enough to file a bug yet, though. |
5 |
|
6 |
Top posting does break the flow of conversation, but I already said a fair few |
7 |
posts up that I had completed the initial move of 17 packages to the new |
8 |
sci-visualization category after asking for commend here months ago, and |
9 |
comment on -dev weeks ago. |
10 |
|
11 |
No further packages have been moved that I can see, and the only small |
12 |
breakage was the opendx-samples dep on opendx. I have manually scanned |
13 |
through the tree for any other broken deps and cannot find any. |
14 |
|
15 |
Markus Dittrich wrote: |
16 |
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> Now the question is, can we put less general-purpose visualization |
19 |
>> programs there? For example, molecular graphics programs. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I would tend to say yes, since molecular graphics programs can vizualize |
22 |
> everything from small molecules to large biomolecular systems. |
23 |
> Hence, I would have a hard time deciding if, e.g. VMD should |
24 |
> be sci-biology or sci-chemistry, whereas sci-visualization seems |
25 |
> natural. I would really like to hear opinions before I commit |
26 |
> VMD to portage. |
27 |
|
28 |
That is my general feeling, and these packages tend to be used by a large |
29 |
cross section of the scientific community. At the end of the day better |
30 |
metadata and search facilities would help as many packages belong in multiple |
31 |
categories. For example qtiplot has a large array of mathematical fitting |
32 |
routines and so did kind of belong in sci-mathematics too, but primarily it |
33 |
is about visualisation of data. Stuff like gwyddion (SPM analysis) doesn't |
34 |
fit anywhere else easily. |