Le mardi 26 février 2008 à 10:03 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, David Bremner wrote:
>
> > Well, perhaps, but:
> >
> > - This is the naming convention suggested by the alioth guidelines
> > on the wiki[1], however authorative those are. Mind you, this is
> > a bit self referential, since these are the guidelines for
> > "packaging projects"
>
> Which is exactly my point: I would love to see the Debian-Science
> effort to be _more_ than a packaging project. Packaging software
> is one important part but it needs more than adding single packages
> to the Debian pool to make Debian really attractive for scientists.
> I'm speaking from my own experience with the Debian-Med project that
> evolved from a one-ma-project taking over some biomedicine packages
> that were available in Debian and adding some more to a group that
> on the one hand adds more and more packages to the pool, but in
> addition:
>
> - cares for QA issues of the related packages by developping
> useful QA tools
> - works together to convince upstream to use free licenses
> - argues with authors of scientific software to reduce the
> number of forks
> - takes part in conferences and reports about this effort
> - etc.
>
> Isn't it science to see the whole picture instead of only tiny
> bits (like single packages)?
I think everybody agree on this. However, we have to start somewhere and
starting to add some interesting packages could be a good way to begin
and to interest people to this project, don't you think ?
I don't know the software David is talking about (sketch, bibutils and
vrr), but software that Adam is packaging (OpenCascade, Code_Aster and
Salomé) deserve to be in pkg-sci{ence,comp}.
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
