2007/8/28, Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Christian Holm Christensen wrote: > > > The problem could be, that `-physics' is just a tad too broad - maybe > > (and only maybe) it needs to be split up into parts (-nanoscience, -hep, > > -theory, -bio, -solid, ...) with some `-physics-common' recommended > > We all know that every science has several flavours. If you want to > reflact this in meta packages we will end up with many meta packages > with zero to two dependant packages which just makes no sense at all. > Just live with some extra installed packages after installing a general > science-physics package or remove the unneeded stuff afterwards. >
while I agree we have many flavours of physicists, I also think -physics is too broad. If I could classify physicists that use computers in the least number of packages I would suggest something like physics-developers (to whom that number-crunching and compile your own code), physics-experimental (data reduction,etc.) and theoretical (symbolic computation, octave, etc.). LaTeX and Gnuplot go into physics-common ;) I think this scheme could be applied to other fields as well. -- Thadeu Penna Prof.Associado - Instituto de Física Universidade Federal Fluminense http://profs.if.uff.br/tjpp/blog
