New tags for biology and medicine.

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:

>> clusters on DebTags technology.  You certainly want to know _exactly_
>> what is installed on your cluster and do not really want it to be changed
>> by any change in the DebTags database.  I think for this purpose the
>> meta package approach is the better way to go.
>
> The debtags would be used as constraints: "I would allow the requested
> installation of program X if there is a facet f such that f(X) is stated in
> debtags and f is among a set of facets that characterise my cluster because I
> say so.
>
> You would _not_ use debtags to install every X with f(X) in debtags for some f
> in F.

Hmmm, so I could undermine your cluster installation via removing or
changing some DebTags of packages you want to install?  I can not
see the rationale behind it.

> Hm. But you saw from Benjamin's reply that he found it not natural to have 3D
> structures a separate facet, and I do not think we should spend much time on
> such easy decisions: of course we need that, but how could Benjamin know?

Well, I don't know either why we really _need_ this.  It might be of
some use perhaps but I fail to see an urgent need.

> I am in favour of some decentral managing. The technology may be there to have
> a shared maintainance but it would be less efficient and probably
> consequently also less fun.

I'm personally very hesitant about any decentral thing because there is
always a danger that people who might care for this in the beginning will
find some new field of interest and we become dependant from some
decentral thing that requires extra maintainance.

> We could have something like: categories with more than 5 entries get into the
> main debtags distribution ... or something alike.

Well, probably we could convince DebTags people by just naming the
5+x entries that a catagorie makes sense without having an extra
repository.

Kind regards

         Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de