Am Freitag, den 21.07.2006, 00:03 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter: > On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[directory/section structure proposal - freedom vs research field] > > 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. > > An answer in this thread said, scientist often don't care about > licenses. And often they are allowed to do so. Often applications have > exceptions for non-commercial use or usage for research tasks. The > latter is easily proven when working for an institute or university. > As a conclusion, separating science applications into > main/contrib/non-free does not make much sense in these cases. Well, scientists (=users here) are not those guys, who will have a look, which packages might be worth (and allowed) to put into Debian. So this is not related to what I said. > As scientist I can put the most into main. No. That is completely wrong. What can go into main, is clearly written in the policy. > So a high level classification into something like libraries, plotting, > visualisation, WEB, GUI, common, ... (only a collection of items as > example) would be more appropriate I think. This is IMHO the job of debtags, and not the job of the repository. And creating a "high level classification" directory structure, will make it more complicated, to find a package (see, how many entries you must put into a single sources.list to get an overview, what packages are available). I disagree to such a model. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
