Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:10:01 -0600 From: Glenn Johnson <gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov> To: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: Glenn Johnson <gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov>, Satoshi Taoka <taoka@freebsd.org>, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules Message-ID: <19990401101001.A18492@symbion.srrc.usda.gov> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904020104270.20365-100000@bragg>; from Kris Kennaway on Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 01:07:35AM %2B0930 References: <19990401092918.A17368@symbion.srrc.usda.gov> <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904020104270.20365-100000@bragg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 01:07:35AM +0930, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Glenn Johnson wrote: > > > I would think this should go in ports/biology. > > ports/chemistry would be better suited, if it existed. There's not very much > 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 :) > > Kris > I agree. The only reason I suggested ports/biology is because it already existed. Modern biology does encompass "classical" biology as well as chemistry so it is not totally inappropriate. Perhaps ports/biochemistry? I am not sure how Physics fits in though, or if we have any ports that are purely for physics. I like your idea but am not clear about how "virtual" descriptions work. Is that something that could be searched for in ports/INDEX? -- Glenn Johnson Technician USDA, ARS, SRRC New Orleans, LA 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?19990401101001.A18492>