Hi, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2007-09-05 23:11:02) : > Le Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:10:42PM +0000, CDD Subversion Commit a écrit : > > Author: fdl-guest
fdl-guest actually is me. :-) > > Note: All these packages are so called metapackages. This means they are > > not > > executable programs, but only links to other packages. This way you will > > - conveniently get all the non-commercial scientific software which is > > available > > - for Debian GNU/Linux. > > - > > + conveniently get most of scientific free software which is available in > > + Debian. > > Note that since you recommend med-bio, and that med-bio suggests > non-commercial software, this description is not completely accurate. Right. But suggested packages in non-free will not get pulled if people do not have the non-free component in their sources.list. I wanted to avoid the 'non-commercial' wording as it is very common in scientific software non-free licenses. Do you have a better wording? > > Recommends: med-bio-dev > > Given that apt will install recommends by default, I am wondering if > just suggesting med-bio-dev would be better. Yes, it is the (unconclusive yet) discussion on debian-science: should we have -dev packages for the science-* packages (as is currently doing debian-med)? In the meanwhile, I will put med-bio-dev in Suggests: as you suggest. Thanks for your feedback, Frédéric Lehobey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
