Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 01:24:54 +0930 (CST) From: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami <asami@freebsd.org> Cc: gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov, taoka@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904020120050.14435-100000@bragg> In-Reply-To: <199904011545.HAA55582@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami wrote:
> * > I would think this should go in ports/biology.
> *
> * ports/chemistry would be better suited, if it existed. There's not very much
>
> I don't mind have a ports/chemistry except there appears to be a fair
> amount of overlap between it and biology.
Yep. In this case I don't think so though (quantum chemistry).
> * in biology - perhaps we should move them to a new 'scientific' category and
> * have 'biology', 'chemistry', 'physics', etc as virtuals (as appropriate).
> * We're not likely to have all that many ports in each of the categories, but it
> * beats misfiling them :)
>
> The only problem is that "scientific" would include (at least) math.
> I wish there's a good word that just covers the three fields you
> mentioned.
Perhaps an abbreviation of "Physical sciences"? Alternatively, just make a
policy decision that the "scientific" category excludes generic statistical
analysis/graphing/mathematical tools and is only for special-purpose
scientific packages. There's probably still a gray area though (I haven't
looked at the current ports to see whether it'd be obvious how to divide
them).
Kris
-----
The Feynman problem-solving algorithm: 1. Write down the problem
2. Think real hard
3. Write down the solution
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.10.9904020120050.14435-100000>