David, in my opinion the scope is quite broad : it spans the "sciences of computing", So pkg-scicomp should definitely not host all possible "science" packages. I stepped up for opencascade/salomé/code aster because I think they fit in (netgen and gmsh which are part of pkg-scicomp have connections with occ for example) .
Best regards C. On Jan 26, 2008 10:18 PM, David Bremner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Christophe" == Christophe Prud'homme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Christophe> David, > > > >> Before we kill pkg-science, are people ok with pkg-scicomp > >> including e.g. graph theory? I.e. stuff outside the normal > >> "numerical" idea that some people have about scientific > >> computing? I certainly don't mind, but when I hear "scientific > >> computing", I think of numerics. > > Christophe> I guess you are referring to metis and scotch. These > Christophe> software are actually quite important in numerical > Christophe> computations for example in mesh partitioning or > Christophe> linear algebra. Software/libraries like petsc, > Christophe> trilinos, suitesparse for example are using them and > Christophe> they are all about numerics. > > > No I was thinking more about software like polymake > (http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/polymake) nauty > (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/ <http://cs.anu.edu.au/%7Ebdm/nauty/>) > (which is not DFSG free, but for > sake illustrating the type of software) or latte > (http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~latte/<http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/%7Elatte/> > ). > > The question I was trying ask is how broad the pkg-scicomp groups sees > its mandate. > > > >
