Don't forget that you can have subsections (eg science/math,
science/biology). This is already used for non-US/{contrib,non-free}; why
not use it for things like this?Regards, Alex. On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Brian Russo wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 05:20:31PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > > The question arises, what subsection should it be put into? > > A comparable program, rasmol, is already in debian, in the math subsection. > > But computational chemistry is not, strictly speaking, mathematics (it > > can be considered a sub-branch of mathematics, but you don't usually talk > > about the weight or electron affinity of a number). > > > > Looking through the math section, there are other packages which aren't > > strictly maths: some biomaths programs (genesis, busx, hmmr), some plotting > > programs (sciplot, grace, geg), some astronomical tools (seesat5, ssystem). > > true.. i maintain sciplot, its use is not 'strictly' maths, > is make 'strictly' devel though? i could probably use 'make' for > stuff that would not necessarily be called 'development' > or.. I could use hindent to reformat my html code without > necessarily putting it on the 'web' > .. > > > > > I therefore wonder if it would not be more appropriate to call this > > subsection "science" rather than "math" ? > > > I've thought of this before, given that the sections are not > fine-grained at all, I disagree with this proposal. > > science is such a generic word, it roughly (very roughly) equates > with "having knowledge" > > applied sciences.. social sciences.. pure sciences.. > even under those 3 broad non-all-inclusive supercategories > theres many branches.. > > As some have said (I forget who and where) the only way to fix the > section system is to replace it with keywords, for which > having a canonical list somewhere would likely prevent it > from being a huge mess. > > would even this be easy? no not really, its really hard to > summarize "what something is useful for" in a single word > much less several words, if you are working from > a non-exhaustive list of words. > hell.. there will always be unthought of uses.. you'd want to > relegate it to what the common uses are.. even then > this would not be easy. > > personally i think unless someone cares enough, its just > as well to leave it the way it is. > > maybe a useful compromise would be to let something > inhabit multiple sections > > -- > Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org > LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
