Dear Andreas, I understand your argument.
I decided to keep it in science. This is actually also how the NeuroDebian package it build and how Yaroslav (from NeuroDebian) proposed it originally . I included an override of the Lintian warning. (Easy, since Raphael did it already). Due to all this changes, I think it is also required to "debchange -i", right? Oliver On 02/04/2014 09:36, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: >> * Oliver Lindemann <[email protected]> [2014-04-01 19:02]: >> >>> Thanks. I applied all patches and kept, in line with Andreas >>> comment, the section as "science". >> You might then apply the patch attached below for overriding the >> Lintian warning. > Well, I might have choosen a wrong wording: I tried to suggest > following lintian in using "Section: python". The thing is that this > Section field has more or less no real meaning and it finally does not > really matter what you put there. But if lintian *tells* you that > policy would expect some section I'm personally following its advise > rather than using some lintian overrides. If a package clearly falls > into *both* sections there is so few reason to worry about the section > field that there is no point in adding any extra line of code (like an > lintian override). > > I'm trying to rephrase my arguing a bit: > > In a Section field the package maintainer tries to guess what a > user might do with the package - in this specific case either > Python programming *(exclusive) or* scienctific research. This > exclusive or is obviously nonsense. > > In Blends tasks different users declare in what field they are > using a certain package and for sure a package can show up in > various differnet tasks. So this package could show up in > *different* sciences and - just to stretch the example - in > certain games programming or education. > > So the tasks concept is to some extend fixing the Section concept of > debian/control which is weak in several ways but we carry it for > historic reasons. Finding a value which keeps lintian happy is a > perfectly valid way to deal with this in my opinion (as long as lintian > is not really wrong - which I can not see in this example). > > Since this is my personal opinion I'm perfectly fine with every choice > you might draw. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > -- /*Dr. Oliver Lindemann* Division of Cognitive Science University of Potsdam/ Karl - Liebknecht Str. 24/25, Building 14, 14476 Potsdam, Germany Tel: +49 - 331 - 977 2915, Fax: +49 - 331 - 977 2794 Room: 6.24, Building 14, http://www.cognitive-psychology.eu/lindemann
