Re: Package categories
=== Finite Element Analysis === proposed -- field::physics:fea (it isn't clear to me that this should be in physics rather than engineering, so maybe field::fea would be better) agreed or field::engineering::fea if field::engineering exists note that it could also fit in math / numerical methods for those who are interested in developing numerical methods in the codes below Exotk Code_Aster OpenFoam OpenFLOWer Salome to my knowledge Salome does not provide a fe code ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package categories
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 13:44 +0100, Chris Walker wrote: Christophe Prud'homme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Salome to my knowledge Salome does not provide a fe code ! AFAICT from http://www.salome-platform.org/home/presentation/overview/ while salome doesn't perform FEA calculations, it can be used to create meshes and display results from FEA - which is why I suggested it in that category. It wouldn't however fit in a numerical methods category. Indeed: Salomé proper doesn't include a solver, but it does just about everything else (meshing, MED file editing, post-processing). And Salomé-MECA adds modules to set up and monitor/control a complex Aster run, so in a sense it is a complete FEA front end. Unfortunately, Salomé recent source code is not available, and most of -MECA source has never been released. :-( However, Sylvestre is in close contact with developers, and it looks like there will be progress by the end of the year. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Package categories
Le Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 02:30:04PM +0100, Chris Walker a écrit : Is kst [A KDE application used for displaying scientific data] incorrectly tagged? In my opinion, yes. The drawback with Debtags is that tagging is anonymous, so we can't discuss with the person who tagged kst Field::Chemistry. But I would suggest asking the maintainer and CCing Debichem to confirm that this tag can be removed. Can someone explain the rationale for having both field::biology and biology::*. Unfortunately, they stem from a disagreement between me and the Debtags team. I wanted a Suite::EMBOSS and a few works-with and works-with-format tags related to biology, and they objected that it was too specialised. They created the biology::facet instead. I do not think that I want to use it. Here is the complete discussion. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/2007-September/001680.html I will go through the packages relevant to Debian Med and reopen the discussion with solid numbers about how many packages would use this or that proposed tag. Have a nice day, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package categories
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 07:03:58PM +0100, Chris Walker a écrit : The debtags available don't seem to have quite enough granularity - but perhaps I've missed something - so I've knocked up a very incomplete list of sections that packages might drop into. Hi Chris, If I understand correctly, the Debtags are not granular on puropse. Better categorisation is supposed to be acheived by combining them. Yes. Furthermore, there are some programs that cross categories. For example, if one were to propose a tag Field::Crystallography [1], then that tag would be appropriate to molecular visualisation programs that had support for crystals - eg by allowing multiple unit cells etc. For instance Field::Chemistry, Use::Viewer instead of Field::Chemistry:Molecular grahpics. How does that distinguish it from the plotting program kst [2] - which is currently tagged Field::Chemistry and use::viewing Is kst incorrectly tagged? If not, should all the other scientific plotting programs be tagged chemistry too - or does kst have some chemistry specific features? This said, there are cases where creating subfacets are definitely the best solution. For instance for biology, we obtained the creation of the Field::Biology:molecular, :bioinformatics and :structural subfacets. As well as * biology::emboss: EMBOSS Packages related to the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. * biology::format:aln: Clustal/ALN Used in multiple alignment of biological sequences. * biology::format:fasta: Nexus Popular format for phylogenetic trees. * biology::nuceleic-acids: Nucleic Acids Software that works with sequences of nucleic acids: DNA, RNA but also non-natural nucleic acids such as PNA or LNA. * biology::peptidic: Proteins Software that works with sequences of aminoacids: peptides and proteins. Can someone explain the rationale for having both field::biology and biology::*. Chris [1] I do wonder about a field::cystallography - to encompas packages for real and reciprocal space study (X-ray, neutron and electron diffraction) of crystalline materials. [2] kst: A KDE application used for displaying scientific data This is a metapackage for kst which installs all of the relevant packages. kst is a program for examining data streams which can plot x-y plots, power spectra, histograms and equations (including equations of data streams). It can also be used to examine data in files which are being updated as data is being logged, in which case it can act as a plotter for a chart recorder. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dreaming 'bout you
Just you and me http://68.54.4.77/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
