I'd leave chemistry programs in the chemistry category. Same with
biology, astronomy and mathematics. The new category fits well for
things like graphviz and opendx.
By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this but I took a course in
Advanced R Programming the week before last. I am toying with the idea
of trying to put together an ebuild schema/eclass for R packages,
similar to what Dirk Eddelbuettel has done with Quantian for the Debian
distro. Who's the current R guru amongst the developers? I can share
notes if you're interested.
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
On Sunday 29 January 2006 22:15, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
Just to confirm that I have added the new category and moved all the
applications that were in my list. Please let me know if there are any
that I have missed. Also let me know if you spot any issues with the move
that I might have missed. I went with the longer name as that was the
prevailing opinion (still preferred the short name myself).
The category is intended for visualisation applications, so please don't
move any libraries such as plplot etc into there. I know there are also
some very hazy applications such as gmt which is now very generic and
used by many more people than just geo-sci folks. So I welcome discussion
on anything else you might feel should be moved. It is good having them
out of media-gfx though :)
Now the question is, can we put less general-purpose visualization
programs there? For example, molecular graphics programs.
I personally would say yes, and that is why I wanted to keep it general.
However I can see the argument for them going in sci-chemistry too. I was
tempted to put stuff like easychem in there as it has no real purpose other
than to draw chemical structures for print etc. I welcome the opinions of
others on this.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
http://linuxcapacityplanning.com
--
[email protected] mailing list
