Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty: [..] > That reminds me of another question I had. Maybe it's too early to > bring up but I'll ask it anyway. > > What would be the best way to organize the archive by section? The > usual divisions "main contrib non-free" are fine for Debian, but one > of the main reasons an unofficial repository is needed is the > often-poor state of care to licenses in scientific software that makes > them unsuitable for Debian's archive. Probably the only software in > "main" in the repo would be either things undergoing testing on their > way to the Debian official archive, or Free software that's too > obscure to package for Debian. (I'm thinking of CERN's "patchy" as an > example for the latter.) > > So I was thinking perhaps a division by field makes more sense - > "analysis astronomy biology chemistry physics" etc. A typical > sources.list line might then look something like > > deb http://www.debian-science.org/ physics analysis
I heavily vote against this. > Maybe some packages could be made available under more than one field And this is the reason. It would make it more complicated to get or even _find_ packages. > (e.g. ROOT under both physics and analysis)? After all, ROOT and > (e.g.) PAW aren't intrinsically physics software (unlike say GEANT), > they're just traditionally used by physicists. Comments? I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section model. This would also help to see, which packages might be worth a try to get them into Debian officially, which should be the goal in every case. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
