Re: science category

[Patrick Welche <prlw1%cam.ac.uk@localhost>]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:14:09AM -0700, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> 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.

I thought that "biology" was the "science" category as it contains
all sorts including gromacs. s/biology/science/ would do the trick
if the rename were free, but it probably isn't...

Cheers,

Patrick