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