Re: "science" or "physics" category

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> writes:

> Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> writes:
>
>> I propose to introduce a category for multiphysics software
>> or to rename "biology" into "science" or "physics".
>
> I am almost always opposed to renaming, given that our tools don't all
> support it.
>
> Ading "science" sounds reasonable; "physics" would lead to 12 new
> categories, and it's important to keep the number of categories under
> control.

My current problem with pkgsrc taxonomy is the huge gap between "math"
and "biology". This causes headache when because of lack of category
I have to choose between "math" with generic algorithms and "biology"
already containing similar packages. I can propose a serie of imports
that gradually extends "biology" to cover everything from (bio)physical
chemistry (you have MOPAC and GROMACS precedents already) to spectroscopy,
solid state physics, and further up to chemical and civil engineering.
Hence the renaming proposal you cite.

I know of some independent attempts to package cheminformatics tools
(from Blue Obelisk project), this potentially involves other categories.
E.g. GRAMPS has landed into "databases", thus creating precedent for
cheminformatics databases landing there. It is easy to create a big mess
when the alternative cost is just having one more category.


-- 
HE CE3OH...