| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I've started to work on moving of sci-physics/herwig++ into the tree |
| 4 |
after discussion with Andrew (see below). It takes with it a bunch of |
| 5 |
packages: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
* sci-physics/rivet |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
* sci-physics/yoda |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* sci-physics/thepeg |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* sci-physics/looptools |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I remember some discussions about ideas to make the tree more for core |
| 16 |
packages and overlay for specialized stuff. How did we decided finally |
| 17 |
what is better: having specialized stuff in overlays, or moving it to |
| 18 |
the tree when it is mature enough? What are pros and cons? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On 08/01/2015 04:51 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 21 |
> Hi, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 14:42:36 +0200 Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 24 |
>> On 08/01/2015 01:51 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 25 |
>>> do you mind moving herwig++ from the science overlay to the main |
| 26 |
>>> Gentoo tree? (If you don't have time for this, but don't mind, I |
| 27 |
>>> can move the package myself.) |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> I do not see the reason for having strictly scientific packages in the |
| 30 |
>> main tree (just my opinion), but if you need it there for some purpose, |
| 31 |
>> I can move it. I just would like to see exactly what is your reason. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> My idea is consistency. We already have plenty of generators and |
| 34 |
> related software in the tree: pythia, herwig, clhep, fastjet, |
| 35 |
> hepmc, siscone. It would be nice to see herwig++ joining the family |
| 36 |
> as well. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> IMO overlays are good for staging or to help non-developers to |
| 39 |
> contribute, but eventually mature software should join the tree. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Best regards, |
| 42 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 43 |
> |
Archives