Re: science category

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

In the past, we've said that we need to get a critical mass of
packages in a certain (notional) category before we made that new
category, and left the stipulation of critical mass until a later
date. Which has kinda worked well, and has prevented us from some
churn, which a lot of people dislike.

So firstly, what packages specifically are you thinking of for this
new category?

And, probably more importantly, "science" is too generic a name for
me. Computing science, for instance, bears little relation to fluid
dynamics, or molecular modeling, or forensic science, or anything
else. Would you care to refine your category suggestion a bit, please?

Thirdly, who actually cares about the category? If ever I want to find
a package, then a search with pkgsrc.se is what I'll use, and that
usually forgives typos and case sensitivity.

Best,
Alistair

On 14 April 2017 at 08:05, Jason Bacon <bacon4000%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> I would like to request the addition of a science category to pkgsrc.
>
> We have developed and are developing a number of scientific packages that do
> not fit well into math, biology, or geography.
>
> They include things like computational fluid dynamics and molecular
> modeling, which are used across multiple disciplines such as engineering,
> physics, and chemistry.
>
> Trying to create more specific categories would result in a large number of
> categories with very few packages in each, as well as arguments about where
> specific packages belong.
>
> I think a science category would provide a good home for many packages until
> the day arrives that there is justification to create more specific
> categories for some of them.
>
> Thanks,
>
>     Jason
>
> --
> Earth is a beta site.