On 04/14/17 12:14, 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. 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. Responding to your items out-of-order... 2) I already addressed this in my initial post. Again, there are many scientific packages that are not specific to one domain and many areas of science that will not generate enough packages to warrant their own category. I don't think this means they should be misclassified as "math" or "biology" or "devel". As an example, FreeBSD ports has separate categories for astro and biology, but everything else is under science. 3) If we don't care about categories, why do we have them at all? Searching is fine if you're looking for a specific package by name. Other times, people might not care about specific tools, but may want to browse http://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/README.html and see what's currently available to suit their purpose. 1) Below are packages that we've developed so far, some of
which are in wip. The rest will get there after a bit of clean
up. There will be many more coming, as we are now committed to
using pkgsrc for our research computing support. I also provided
a small sample of packages that I would argue are misclassified.
I won't argue for moving them: that's up to their maintainers.
But it illustrates the reality of the problem for people browsing
the collection. Last is a list of packages in the FreeBSD ports
science category. You can also see the potential for a science
category in https://packages.debian.org/jessie/science/. Packages in wip that should be in science category: -- Earth is a beta site. |