I'd leave chemistry programs in the chemistry category. Same with 
biology, astronomy and mathematics. The new category fits well for 
things like graphviz and opendx.

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this but I took a course in 
Advanced R Programming the week before last. I am toying with the idea 
of trying to put together an ebuild schema/eclass for R packages, 
similar to what Dirk Eddelbuettel has done with Quantian for the Debian 
distro. Who's the current R guru amongst the developers? I can share 
notes if you're interested.

Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> On Sunday 29 January 2006 22:15, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>   
>> Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
>>     
>>> Just to confirm that I have added the new category and moved all the
>>> applications that were in my list. Please let me know if there are any
>>> that I have missed. Also let me know if you spot any issues with the move
>>> that I might have missed. I went with the longer name as that was the
>>> prevailing opinion (still preferred the short name myself).
>>>
>>> The category is intended for visualisation applications, so please don't
>>> move any libraries such as plplot etc into there. I know there are also
>>> some very hazy applications such as gmt which is now very generic and
>>> used by many more people than just geo-sci folks. So I welcome discussion
>>> on anything else you might feel should be moved. It is good having them
>>> out of media-gfx though :)
>>>       
>> Now the question is, can we put less general-purpose visualization
>> programs there? For example, molecular graphics programs.
>>     
>
> I personally would say yes, and that is why I wanted to keep it general. 
> However I can see the argument for them going in sci-chemistry too. I was 
> tempted to put stuff like easychem in there as it has no real purpose other 
> than to draw chemical structures for print etc. I welcome the opinions of 
> others on this.
>   

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com

-- 
gentoo-science@g.o mailing list