Debian Bug report logs - #361418
[Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:46:10 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.2.2
Severity: wishlist

Background:
----------
The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.

Proposal:
--------
Following discussion on debian-policy I am formally proposing the 
new Debian menu structure devised by Linas Zvirblis to be included
in the Debian menu subpolicy.

For transitionning from the old structure, the translate_menus system
will be reused.  

What should you do:
------------------
--- As a packages maintainer: check whether your menu entry fit in the
    new structure.
--- As a translator: check whether the new names are easier to
    understand and translate.
--- As a Debian user: check whether the new structure improve the Debian
menu system.

Thanks in advance for all your suggestions for improvement. Please send
them to this buglog so we find them.

Please find in attachment:
-------------------------
1) The proposed new menu structure

2) The translate_menus file. To experiment with the new menu structure,
copy this file to /etc/menu-methods/ and rerun update-menus, the new
menu structure will be in effect as far as renaming of section are 
concerned (this will not add/remove new sections by itself).  Note that
this is English only until menu is translated (which will happen as soon
as the new structure is finalised and official).

Summary of changes:
------------------

1) Removed section:
Apps/Tools
Games/Sports
Screen/Root-window

2) Renamed sections:
Applications [was:Apps]
  Educational [was:Education]
  HAM Radio [was:Hamradio]
  Mathematical [was:Math]
  Network [was:Net]
  Scientific [was:Science]
     System/Administration [was:Admin]
     System/Language Environment [was:Language-Environment]
  Terminal Emulators [was:XShells]
Games
  Blocks [was:Tetris-like]
Screen
  Saving [was:Save]
  Locking [was:Lock]

Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]

3) New sections:

Applications [was:Apps]
  Accessibility [new]
  Data Management [new]
  File Management [new]
  Mobile Devices [new]
  Network [was:Net]
     Network/Communication [new]
     Network/File Transfer [new]
     Network/Monitoring [new]
     Network/Web Browsing [new]
     Network/Web News [new]
  Office [new]
  Project Management [new]
  System
     System/Hardware [new]
     System/Monitoring [new]
     System/Package Management [new]
     System/Security [new]
  Technical
     Technical/Electronics [new]
     Technical/Engineering [new]

  TV and Radio [new]
  Video [new]
  Web Development [new]

Games
  Tools [new]

Acknowledgement:
---------------
This new structure was devised by Linas Zvirblis with input from the
debian-policy mailing list.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

[structure (text/plain, attachment)]

[translate_menus (text/plain, attachment)]

[Message part 4 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:43:49 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Saturday 08 April 2006 16:46, Bill Allombert wrote:
> What should you do:
> ------------------
> --- As a packages maintainer: check whether your menu entry fit in the
>     new structure.

Have you given any more thought to extending the menu policy for doc-base 
as briefly discussed in [1] and your follow-up to that?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2005/10/msg00033.html

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeffrey Austen <jausten@tntech.edu>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Suggest moving HAM Radio to Technical

Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:11:28 +0000

I suggest that HAM Radio be moved into the Technical
section because there is a lot in common between
HAM Radio and Technical/Electronics. Having them both
in the Technical section will make it easier for users
to find the desired application.

Jeff

Message #20 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:09:38 +0300

"Data Management" is not a new section. It was previously named
"Databases", as seen in "translate_menus". My mistake, sorry.

 - Data Management [new]
 - Interactive database programs, collection
 - managers, bibliography tools etc.
 - gaby, alexandria, mdbtools

 + Data Management [was:Databases]
 + Interactive database programs, collection
 + managers, bibliography tools etc.
 + gaby, alexandria, mdbtools

Message #25 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 09:48:48 +1000

On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Background:
> ----------
> The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
> the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
> The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
> bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.
> 
[...]
> 2) Renamed sections:
> Applications [was:Apps]
>   Educational [was:Education]
>   HAM Radio [was:Hamradio]
[...]

Hi Bill,

"HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.

Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.


Thanks for the work on the new menu structure.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Message #30 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk (Andrew M.A. Cater)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 00:28:12 +0000

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 09:48:48AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Version: 3.6.2.2
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > Background:
> > ----------
> > The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
> > the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
> > The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
> > bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.
> > 
> [...]
> > 2) Renamed sections:
> > Applications [was:Apps]
> >   Educational [was:Education]
> >   HAM Radio [was:Hamradio]
> [...]
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> 
> Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.
> 
Radio amateur / amateur radio : either would be fine IMHO.

Andy [Amateur radio callsign G0EVX]

Message #35 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:14:30 +0930

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Translation feedback:

On 09/04/2006, at 12:16 AM, Bill Allombert wrote:

> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
> <snip>

> Screen
>   Saving [was:Save]
>   Locking [was:Lock]
>
>      Network/Monitoring [new]
>      Network/Web Browsing [new]
>
>      System/Monitoring [new]
>
The difficult with strings like these, which will appear like this:

msgid "Saving"

msgid "Locking"

msgid "Monitoring"

etc.

is that unless we have some context, we don't know if the string is a  
noun describing an action or group of actions, or whether it is an  
ongoing action itself.

For example, "Saving" could be a progress message on the screen,  
while something is being saved. Or it could be a section in the  
preferences, about saving files. Or it could be a menu item about  
saving things, with sub-items which are the actual commands.

We definitely need context for these strings, at least. I would  
recommend context for all new or changed strings, e.g.

#.Translators: menu item
msgid "Saving"
msgstr "Lưu"

as opposed to

#.Translators: label on progress bar
msgid "Saving"
msgstr "Đang lưu..."

This will ensure more accurate translations.

For reference, the Debian Installer level 1 file demonstrates best  
practice in translation context.

from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhóm  
Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN

[PGP.sig (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 07:36:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> 
> Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.


HAM is probably well known among the amateur radio community.

However, *outside* this community, the name is pretty cryptic (I have
not idea, actually, what this "H" letter stands for).

So, I would also second "Amateur radio"...

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

To: Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 07:39:38 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> The difficult with strings like these, which will appear like this:
> 
> msgid "Saving"
> 
> msgid "Locking"
> 
> msgid "Monitoring"


Thankfully, Bill is very clever about translation issues and it's
about one year since he put very detailed commentd in the POT and PO
files:

#
#.  First level entry
#.  BE VERY CAREFUL HERE
#.  Menu policy definition: programs that affect the whole screen
#.  This entry is about screen saver/locking systems
#.  (see the following entries)
#.  Most often, literal translations to the word for "Screen"
#.  in your language will NOT be correct
#.  Try using what you use for "screen" in "screensaver" for your language
msgid "Screen"

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #50 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 08:31:14 +0200

#include <hallo.h>
* Bill Allombert [Sat, Apr 08 2006, 04:46:10PM]:

> Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
> Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]

I cannot see the reason for this change. "Modules" can stand for any
kind of modules (kernel, X11, software components) however this section
was explicitely preserved for Window manager related modules.

Eduard.

-- 
<mechanix> anyone from the MIA team around? tbm?
<Ganneff> sounds nice. how long do you have to be MIA to get into that team? :)
<mhp> you need to have a pgp key, I suppose. and no gpg one, and only a bo box
<Np237> yes, but it must be expired

Message #55 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 14:31:17 +0300

Eduard Bloch wrote:

>> Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
>> Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]
> 
> I cannot see the reason for this change. "Modules" can stand for any
> kind of modules (kernel, X11, software components) however this section
> was explicitely preserved for Window manager related modules.

Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to. Being a
user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to know what they
are. Moreover, they tend to get hidden among other entries in "Window
Managers", if you have a lot of window managers installed.

I consider this an improvement because users that need window manager
modules will find them easier to locate, and users who do not, will
never ever see this section anyway.

Message #60 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:07:05 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 09-Apr-2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >> Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
> >> Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]
> > 
> > I cannot see the reason for this change. "Modules" can stand for
> > any kind of modules (kernel, X11, software components) however
> > this section was explicitely preserved for Window manager related
> > modules.
> 
> Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to. Being a
> user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to know what
> they are.

There seem to be two flawed assumptions here.

One is the assumption that only one window manager will be installed
on the computer. What if three window managers are installed:

  - window manager M, which uses its own modules
  - window manager N, which use sits own modules
  - window manager L, which has no concept of modules

It seems that any modules installed for M would be visible in the menu
when using L and N, where they are useless.

Another flawed assumption is that the current user is the one who
understands what window manager they are using (or even understands
what a "window manager" is anyway). For users of computers where some
other user installs software that causes menu items to appear under
this section, they cannot be expected to know the meaning of a menu
section named "Modules".

I believe the menu sections should be named so that a user who *never*
installs software, nor understands what a window manager is, can still
navigate and understand the menu items provided by that software.

-- 
 \       "During the Middle Ages, probably one of the biggest mistakes |
  `\   was not putting on your armor because you were 'just going down |
_o__)                                 to the corner.'"  -- Jack Handey |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Shaun Jackman" <sjackman@gmail.com>

To: "Bill Allombert" <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:46:21 -0600

Is it possible to make use of freedesktop.org's standardization of
menu layout within Debian? If we find their standard lacking, could we
lobby them for improvements similar to those listed here?

This work is certainly an improvement. Thanks,
Shaun

On 4/8/06, Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Background:
> ----------
> The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
> the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
> The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
> bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.
...

Message #70 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:49:23 +0300

Ben Finney wrote:

> One is the assumption that only one window manager will be installed
> on the computer. What if three window managers are installed:
> 
>   - window manager M, which uses its own modules
>   - window manager N, which use sits own modules
>   - window manager L, which has no concept of modules
> 
> It seems that any modules installed for M would be visible in the menu
> when using L and N, where they are useless.

No, this will not happen. Modules will only show up inside a WM they
belong to. More on this in Menu documentation chapter 3.4, namely this
paragraph:

"A menu manager can use a special needs named after the package for menu
entries that must only be displayed in this menu manager. Examples
include fvwm modules, dwww menu entries."

Message #75 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:14:33 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 09-Apr-2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >> Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
> >> Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]
> > 
> > I cannot see the reason for this change. "Modules" can stand for
> > any kind of modules (kernel, X11, software components) however
> > this section was explicitely preserved for Window manager related
> > modules.
> 
> Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to. Being a
> user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to know what
> they are.

I don't believe that's true; you seem to be conflating "user" with
"person who installs the software". Most users of a computer have no
idea what a "window manager" is, let alone that they have "modules";
yet they may well desire to use some of these.

To repeat part of my message you didn't address:

Another flawed assumption is that the current user is the one who
understands what window manager they are using (or even understands
what a "window manager" is anyway). For users of computers where some
other user installs software that causes menu items to appear under
this section, they cannot be expected to know the meaning of a menu
section named "Modules".

I believe the menu sections should be named so that a user who *never*
installs software, nor understands what a window manager is, can still
navigate and understand the menu items provided by that software.

-- 
 \      "I have a large seashell collection, which I keep scattered on |
  `\        the beaches all over the world. Maybe you've seen it."  -- |
_o__)                                                    Steven Wright |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #80 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:51:24 +0300

Ben Finney wrote:

>> Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to. Being a
>> user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to know what
>> they are.
> 
> I don't believe that's true; you seem to be conflating "user" with
> "person who installs the software". Most users of a computer have no
> idea what a "window manager" is, let alone that they have "modules";
> yet they may well desire to use some of these.

I am not conflating anything. If a "person who installs the software"
decides to install a WM that uses modules and give it to a "user", what
can I do about it? The modules are part of the WM, so a "user" can be
expected to know what they are as much as he/she can be expected to know
what the other parts of the WM are.

> To repeat part of my message you didn't address:

I did not address it, because I thought it was self explanatory after I
explained how modules are handled inside menu system.

> Another flawed assumption is that the current user is the one who
> understands what window manager they are using (or even understands
> what a "window manager" is anyway). For users of computers where some
> other user installs software that causes menu items to appear under
> this section, they cannot be expected to know the meaning of a menu
> section named "Modules".

Again, what can I do about it? They might as well not know what a
terminal emulator is.

> I believe the menu sections should be named so that a user who *never*
> installs software, nor understands what a window manager is, can still
> navigate and understand the menu items provided by that software.

I do agree with this, but I fail to understand how naming modules as
"modules" is against this idea? I also fail to understand what exactly
you are opposing? The move of modules from /WindowManagers/Modules to
/Modules? I explained the reasons behind this.

Are you a user of a WM that uses modules? If so, do you really prefer to
dig trough all truly unrelated entries in /WindowManagers to locate a
module you need?

I do understand the possible pitfalls that Eduard Bloch questioned. We
might indeed need a top level section named "Modules" for something else
in the future. But this has not been the case for years now, and nothing
indicates that it will, so this is not the case of "solve a problem and
create another one", but rather "solve a problem that might need to be
solved again at some point in the future, although unlikely".

None of the changes were made for no reason. If you disagree with any of
them, you are free to suggest a better solution. So far I have not seen
any suggestions from you.

Message #85 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

To: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:17:52 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 10-Apr-2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> >> Yes, but they are only shown if you run a VM they belong to.
> >> Being a user of a VM that uses modules, you can be expected to
> >> know what they are.
> > 
> > I don't believe that's true; you seem to be conflating "user" with
> > "person who installs the software". Most users of a computer have
> > no idea what a "window manager" is, let alone that they have
> > "modules"; yet they may well desire to use some of these.
> 
> I am not conflating anything. If a "person who installs the
> software" decides to install a WM that uses modules and give it to a
> "user", what can I do about it?

That's the wrong question.

The question that needs to be asked, now that it's clear there's a
distinction between the person who installs the software and the
person who wants to use it, is this:

What will the user be looking for when they want to find this software
in the menu system?

I'm raising this distinction because you seemed (when I read your
response to Eduard) to assume a context that is only valid for the
person who knows exactly what software was installed, and can look for
it with that knowledge.

I'm pointing out that the person looking in the menu could very well
know nothing about the software that was installed, but has some
particular function in mind.

Eduard, do you feel the new categorisation meets the search
requirements of that user? Linas, do you feel that it meets them?

-- 
 \             "Room service? Send up a larger room."  -- Groucho Marx |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #90 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Shaun Jackman <sjackman@gmail.com>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:03:19 +0200

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 10:46:21AM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Is it possible to make use of freedesktop.org's standardization of
> menu layout within Debian? If we find their standard lacking, could we
> lobby them for improvements similar to those listed here?

The freedesktop.org menu draft do not mandate a menu layout. Instead it
mandate a list of categories that should be used by .menu files to build
menus, the .menu files specifying the layout and the way categories are
presented to the users. The menu-xdg Debian package provide a menu-method
that generate a .menu file that implement the Debian menu layout in term
of the freedesktop.org menu draft.

I am not sure it would make sense to standardize a menu layout: such
layout should be decided with respect to the actual set of menu entries
we want to provide instead of abstractly.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #95 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:57:48 +0200

On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 08:31:14AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Bill Allombert [Sat, Apr 08 2006, 04:46:10PM]:
> 
> > Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
> > Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]
> 
> I cannot see the reason for this change. "Modules" can stand for any
> kind of modules (kernel, X11, software components) however this section
> was explicitely preserved for Window manager related modules.

WindowManagers/Modules was problematic because, first, Modules are not
WindowManagers and, second, if you have more than a couple of window
managers installed, Modules end up in the middle of the list which make
it difficult to spot (sometimes to the point people will miss this
submenu exist entirely)

I would like to stress that modules menu entries use window-managers
specific 'needs' fields and as such are not bound by the Debian menu
sub-policy (each window manager can choose its own section for modules)
so it is meant only as a best practice and a convenience (because it
will be translated as part of the menu section translation).

However it might be that 'Modules' alone is too vague. Any specific 
improvement welcome.

Cheers,
Bill.

Message #100 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:22:53 +0200

#include <hallo.h>
* Bill Allombert [Mon, Apr 10 2006, 11:57:48PM]:

> I would like to stress that modules menu entries use window-managers
> specific 'needs' fields and as such are not bound by the Debian menu
> sub-policy (each window manager can choose its own section for modules)
> so it is meant only as a best practice and a convenience (because it
> will be translated as part of the menu section translation).
> 
> However it might be that 'Modules' alone is too vague. Any specific 
> improvement welcome.

What about this one: as you pointed out the Modules submenu is not
heavily used. What about just putting the module entries of each WM
using them into separate ...-Modules submenus in the same hierarchy
level as the WM entries? Imagine:

 -> IceWM
 -> Window Maker
 -> Foo WM
 -> Foo WM Modules
    \- Foo Background Setup
    |- Foo Gadget Setup
    |- Foo Other Module
 -> Other WM
 -> TWM

I think that would be a good compromise. The Module submenu's location
follows directly the Foo WM starting entry and is easy to find. And
if only few WMs are adding modules there, it would not significantly
increase the number of top menu entries. And who does really install
more than a handful of WMs using "Modules" entries? Having some
addigional *-Modules entries in the menu would not really hurt.

Eduard.
        
-- 
<McBulba> un nu?
<lx_jakal> hunger!
<retfie> durst!
<lx_jakal> ja, das auch

Message #105 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:34:45 +0200

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Bill Allombert [Mon, Apr 10 2006, 11:57:48PM]:
> 
> > I would like to stress that modules menu entries use window-managers
> > specific 'needs' fields and as such are not bound by the Debian menu
> > sub-policy (each window manager can choose its own section for modules)
> > so it is meant only as a best practice and a convenience (because it
> > will be translated as part of the menu section translation).
> > 
> > However it might be that 'Modules' alone is too vague. Any specific 
> > improvement welcome.
> 
> What about this one: as you pointed out the Modules submenu is not
> heavily used. What about just putting the module entries of each WM
> using them into separate ...-Modules submenus in the same hierarchy
> level as the WM entries? Imagine:
> 
>  -> IceWM
>  -> Window Maker
>  -> Foo WM
>  -> Foo WM Modules
>     \- Foo Background Setup
>     |- Foo Gadget Setup
>     |- Foo Other Module
>  -> Other WM
>  -> TWM
> 
> I think that would be a good compromise. The Module submenu's location
> follows directly the Foo WM starting entry and is easy to find. And
> if only few WMs are adding modules there, it would not significantly
> increase the number of top menu entries. And who does really install
> more than a handful of WMs using "Modules" entries? Having some
> addigional *-Modules entries in the menu would not really hurt.

Please take into account that Debian menu will only display modules
suitable for the running window-manager (because they use a specific
'needs' field that only this wm 'support'). So in effect you are just
renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to "Window Managers/$wm Modules".

I am not a typical user, but I have 45 window-managers installed
so I have a hard time finding the single Modules subsection and
naming it "Foo WM Modules" will not make things any easier. That
might not make me the best judge of the issue, though.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #110 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:56:50 +0200

#include <hallo.h>
* Bill Allombert [Tue, Apr 11 2006, 12:34:45AM]:

> Please take into account that Debian menu will only display modules
> suitable for the running window-manager (because they use a specific

Okay... now I understand.

> 'needs' field that only this wm 'support'). So in effect you are just
> renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to "Window Managers/$wm Modules".

Yep. WRT you said above, what abot renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to
"$wm Modules" (one level above WM starters and indicating which
"modules" are meant by that).

> I am not a typical user, but I have 45 window-managers installed
> so I have a hard time finding the single Modules subsection and
> naming it "Foo WM Modules" will not make things any easier. That
> might not make me the best judge of the issue, though.

Ehm - yes to both.

Eduard.

-- 
For any stupid thing chosen at random, you'll find at least 5 people on
the Internet who thinks it's a good idea. -- Steve Langasek in debian-devel

Message #115 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:19:27 +0300

Eduard Bloch wrote:

> Yep. WRT you said above, what abot renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to
> "$wm Modules" (one level above WM starters and indicating which
> "modules" are meant by that).

One more thing to consider is that if we will have to to move/rename
modules in the future (current situation is an example of this), having
them scattered in different unofficial sections will make it a
non-trivial task.

Message #120 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:19:09 +0200

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:56:50AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Bill Allombert [Tue, Apr 11 2006, 12:34:45AM]:
> 
> Yep. WRT you said above, what abot renaming "WindowManagers/Modules" to
> "$wm Modules" (one level above WM starters and indicating which
> "modules" are meant by that).

I proposed something similar in debian-policy, but the issue is that the
l10n system in menu is not able to deal with joker in section when
translating and there is no obvious and clean solutions to that.

An alternative would be to list all the "$wm Modules".  By my reckoning
the following window-manager has some modules menu entries:
fvwm95, fvwm, fvwm1 and wmaker.

However wmaker entries in WindowManagers/Modules are not really modules
so could be moved elsewhere (and anyway, menu already include specific
translation for WindowMaker-specific menu entries).

This means we could simply add a translation for the string "FVWM Modules"
and request fvwm-based WM to put modules in "FVWM Modules".

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #125 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stef VK5HSX <vk5hsx@wia.org.au>

To: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:29:00 +0930

Greetings..
					
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 07:36 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> > 
> > Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> > disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.
> 
> 
> HAM is probably well known among the amateur radio community.
> 
> However, *outside* this community, the name is pretty cryptic (I have
> not idea, actually, what this "H" letter stands for).
> 
> So, I would also second "Amateur radio"...

I too feel "Amateur Radio" Would be the preferred Menu item.. rather
than "Ham".

-- 
Regards - Stef VK5HSX
          Adelaide, Sth Australia 
          -= Use Open Source Software =-
                 GNU\Linux Debian.

Message #130 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ognyan Kulev <ogi@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:38:15 +0300

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> 
> Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.

Is there a problem with using "Amateur (Ham) Radio"?

Regards,
ogi

Message #135 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>

To: Ognyan Kulev <ogi@fmi.uni-sofia.bg>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-hams@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:49:31 +0100

Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > "HAM" is not an acronym, so "Ham Radio" would be more appropriate.
> > 
> > Even better (IMHO) is the full term "Amateur Radio", but some may
> > disagree. I've CC'd debian-hams for their input also.
> 
> Is there a problem with using "Amateur (Ham) Radio"?

It is unnecessarily complicated.


Thiemo

Message #140 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-games-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:25:14 -0300

The pkg-games project has discussed in the past that "Arcade" is a poor
category, and yet it is preserved in this new menu proposal.

The thread starts here:

http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-January/000047.html

Please note that since that time, we have moved back to the old
debian-games-devel@lists.d.o list as our discussion list.  Please Cc
followups relating to the Games submenu there.

Ben

Message #145 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-games-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:53:41 +0200

On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:25:14AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> The pkg-games project has discussed in the past that "Arcade" is a poor
> category, and yet it is preserved in this new menu proposal.
> 
> The thread starts here:
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-January/000047.html

Hello Ben and Debian Games developers,

Could you be more specific about the change you would like to propose ?

Would renaming "Arcade" to "Action" be better ?

Are there games that does not fit well in any sections ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #150 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:31:28 +0200

On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:25:14AM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> The pkg-games project has discussed in the past that "Arcade" is a poor
> category, and yet it is preserved in this new menu proposal.
> 
> The thread starts here:
> 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-January/000047.html
> 
> Please note that since that time, we have moved back to the old
> debian-games-devel@lists.d.o list as our discussion list.  Please Cc
> followups relating to the Games submenu there.

As far as I see, the list address is debian-devel-games@lists.d.o,
not debian-games-devel@.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #155 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.Debian.org, debian-i18n@lists.Debian.org, debian-desktop@lists.Debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 13:26:23 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Debian people,

I am proposing a new version of the new Debian menu structure proposal
incorporating changes that have been proposed.

Here the change from the previous draft:

- change 'HAM Radio' to 'Amateur Radio'.
- revert change 'Educational' -> 'Education'.
- add 'Electronics' in place of 'Technical/Electronics'.
- add 'Engineering' in place of 'Technical/Engineering'.
- change 'Mathematical' to 'Mathematics'.
- revert change 'Scientific' -> 'Science'.
- rename 'Games/Arcade' to 'Games/Action'.
- 'Modules' splited in 'FVWM Modules' and 'Window Maker'.
- Lot of typo fix, courtesy of debian-l10-english.

The changes from the current menu structure are listed below.
The full listing is in attachment.

Background:
----------
The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.

Proposal:
--------
Following discussion on debian-policy I am formally proposing the 
new Debian menu structure devised by Linas Zvirblis to be included
in the Debian menu subpolicy.

For transitionning from the old structure, the translate_menus system
will be reused.  

What should you do:
------------------
--- As a packages maintainer: check whether your menu entry fit in the
    new structure.
--- As a translator: check whether the new names are easier to
    understand and translate.
--- As a Debian user: check whether the new structure improve the Debian
menu system.

Thanks in advance for all your suggestions for improvement. Please send
them to this buglog so we find them.

Please find in attachment:
-------------------------
1) The proposed new menu structure

2) The translate_menus file. To experiment with the new menu structure,
copy this file to /etc/menu-methods/ and rerun update-menus, the new
menu structure will be in effect as far as renaming of section are 
concerned (this will not add/remove new sections by itself).  Note that
this is English only until menu is translated (which will happen as soon
as the new structure is finalised and official).

summary of changes:
------------------

 -- Removed Sections --

Apps/Tools          (351 entry)
Games/Sports        (7 entries)
Screen/Root-window  (8 entries)

 -- Renamed Sections --

Applications [was:Apps]
  Amateur Radio [was:Hamradio]
  Data Management [was:Databases]
  Electronics [was:Technical]
  Mathematics [was:Math]
  Network [was:Net]
  System
     System/Administration [was:Admin]
     System/Language Environment [was:Language-Environment]
  Terminal Emulators [was:XShells]
Games
  Action [was:Arcade]
  Blocks [was:Tetris-like]
Screen
  Saving [was:Save]
  Locking [was:Lock]
Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
FVWM Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]


 -- New Sections --

Applications
  Accessibility [new]
  Engineering [new]
  File Management [new]
  Mobile Devices [new]
  Network
     Network/Communication [new]
     Network/File Transfer [new]
     Network/Monitoring [new]
     Network/Web Browsing [new]
     Network/Web News [new]
  Office [new]
  Project Management [new]
  System
     System/Hardware [new]
     System/Monitoring [new]
     System/Package Management [new]
     System/Security [new]
  TV and Radio [new]
  Video [new]
  Web Development [new]
Games
  Tools [new]
Window Maker [new]

Acknowledgement:
---------------
This new structure was devised by Linas Zvirblis with input from the
debian-policy mailing list.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

[structure (text/plain, attachment)]

[translate_menus (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #160 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: ucko@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:36:49 +0900

(copy sent to the maintainer of the ncbi-tools packages)

On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote :
> Hello Debian people,
> 
> I am proposing a new version of the new Debian menu structure proposal
> incorporating changes that have been proposed.
> 
> What should you do:
> ------------------
> --- As a Debian user: check whether the new structure improve the Debian
> menu system.

Dear Menu people,

The packages ncbi-tools-bin and ncbi-tools-x11 have many many menu
entries. Do you think that it would make sense to create a "NCBI"
subsection in the Science section?

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Wako, Saitama, Japan

Message #165 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:47:00 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:36:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> (copy sent to the maintainer of the ncbi-tools packages)
> 
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 01:26:23PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote :
> > Hello Debian people,
> > 
> > I am proposing a new version of the new Debian menu structure proposal
> > incorporating changes that have been proposed.
> > 
> > What should you do:
> > ------------------
> > --- As a Debian user: check whether the new structure improve the Debian
> > menu system.
> 
> Dear Menu people,
> 
> The packages ncbi-tools-bin and ncbi-tools-x11 have many many menu
> entries. Do you think that it would make sense to create a "NCBI"
> subsection in the Science section?

Note that this is beyond the scope of the Debian menu structure, since
the Debian menu sub-policy allows packages to use new third-level
sections for private purpose.

The criterion to add a new (unofficial) section is whether:
1. that will help users find the softwares.
2. the new section will almost never be with exactly one or two entries
and often with at least five entries when it is not empty.

Here criterium 2 is fulfilled easily: there will be 0 or >=8 entries,

For criterium 1. I think "NCBI" is far too cryptic. What does that mean
anyway ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #170 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 00:10:36 +0900

Le Sun, May 14, 2006 at 04:47:00PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:36:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > The packages ncbi-tools-bin and ncbi-tools-x11 have many many menu
> > entries. Do you think that it would make sense to create a "NCBI"
> > subsection in the Science section?
> 
> Note that this is beyond the scope of the Debian menu structure, since
> the Debian menu sub-policy allows packages to use new third-level
> sections for private purpose.
> 
> The criterion to add a new (unofficial) section is whether:
> 1. that will help users find the softwares.
> 2. the new section will almost never be with exactly one or two entries
> and often with at least five entries when it is not empty.
> 
> Here criterium 2 is fulfilled easily: there will be 0 or >=8 entries,
> 
> For criterium 1. I think "NCBI" is far too cryptic. What does that mean
> anyway ?

Hi,

Sorry for my ignorance, I overlooked the relevant part of the
sub-policy.

NCBI is the National Center for Biotechnology Information
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). Think about the Google for biological
research.

My reasonning was that if people install the packages ncbi-tools-*, they
necessarly know what the NCBI is. These packages are not part of complex
dependancies networks:

sorbet【debian】$ apt-cache rdepends ncbi-tools-bin
ncbi-tools-bin
Reverse Depends:
  perlprimer
  perlprimer
  ncbi-tools6
  ncbi-tools-x11
  ncbi-data
  libncbi6
  blast2
sorbet【debian】$ apt-cache rdepends ncbi-tools-x11
ncbi-tools-x11
Reverse Depends:
  vibrant6
  ncbi-tools-bin
  libncbi6
  blast2

Being a molecular biologist, I can certify that a user of any of those
packages would know what the NCBI is.

The only case where I guess that people would be exposed to the name
without knowing it is in the live distributions with pre-installed
scientific programs, such as Bio-Knoppix or Quantian, or if they
mass-install packages sharing some tags.

Bonne journée,

-- 
Charles

Message #175 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: 361418@bugs.Debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 14 May 2006 18:20:25 +0200

Hello,

On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian Science people,
> 
> There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
> 
> The relevant sections are:
> 
>   Mathematics [was:Math]
>   Mathematics-related software.
>   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
> 
>   Science
>   Software for natural and social sciences, humanities, etc.
>   ncbi-epcr, earth3d, therion
> 
> Please send comment to bug #361418.
> 

>From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy.  I think Mathematics
is also part of Science.  At least for application like axiom, octave,
mathematica, ...
So having a Math section in parallel to Science could be for more
"calulator" oriented SW.

In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
and not education.
Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
	Mathematics
	Physics
	Bio
	Chemistry
	Astronomics
	Geology
	...
where some applications or tools can be part of several sub-sections.
Perhaps applications which could be used in nearly all sub-sections
could go into a "General" or "Common" Section.

In parallel to section "Science" have a section "Education".

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #180 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Pietra <frapietra@alice.it>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:45:44 +0200

etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences" 
mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there 
are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view - 
mpqc. At any event, there are chemists under the "Science section" umbrella.
Regards
francesco pietra

On Sunday 14 May 2006 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian Science people,
>
> There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
>
> The relevant sections are:
>
>   Mathematics [was:Math]
>   Mathematics-related software.
>   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
>
>   Science
>   Software for natural and social sciences, humanities, etc.
>   ncbi-epcr, earth3d, therion
>
> Please send comment to bug #361418.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
>
> Imagine a large red swirl here.

Message #185 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Pietra <frapietra@alice.it>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 17:57:31 +0200

I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert. 

The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology" 
and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.

I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is 
science, or ideally it should be. Most discoveries spring from students doing 
a thesis work, which is education. Arrhenius set the a large section of the 
basis of chemistry (and thereby of biology chemistry agronomy etc etc) while 
a student under education (although - being too much ahead of the times - he 
was blamed for his ideas).

Surely what I am saying is not exhaustive. It is a matter to think about for a 
while. I am answering while doing chemistry, thus short of time.

regards
francesco pietra

On Sunday 14 May 2006 18:20, Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello Debian Science people,
> >
> > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> > opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
> >
> > The relevant sections are:
> >
> >   Mathematics [was:Math]
> >   Mathematics-related software.
> >   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
> >
> >   Science
> >   Software for natural and social sciences, humanities, etc.
> >   ncbi-epcr, earth3d, therion
> >
> > Please send comment to bug #361418.
> >
> >
> >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
>
> It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy.  I think Mathematics
> is also part of Science.  At least for application like axiom, octave,
> mathematica, ...
> So having a Math section in parallel to Science could be for more
> "calulator" oriented SW.
>
> In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> and not education.
> Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> 	Mathematics
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 	Chemistry
> 	Astronomics
> 	Geology
> 	...
> where some applications or tools can be part of several sub-sections.
> Perhaps applications which could be used in nearly all sub-sections
> could go into a "General" or "Common" Section.
>
> In parallel to section "Science" have a section "Education".
>
> Kind Regards,
> Thomas

Message #190 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>

To: charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 18:58:32 +0200

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:10:36AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:

> My reasonning was that if people install the packages ncbi-tools-*,
> they necessarly know what the NCBI is.

It means at least one person on the machine knows. The other users
will see a cryptic "NCBI" and think "WTF is that?".

-- 
Lionel

Message #195 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:20:55 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy.  I think Mathematics
> is also part of Science.  At least for application like axiom, octave,
> mathematica, ...
> So having a Math section in parallel to Science could be for more
> "calulator" oriented SW.

Well most mathematical software I know are oriented toward doing 
computation.

> In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> and not education.
> Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> 	Mathematics
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 	Chemistry
> 	Astronomics
> 	Geology

Could you provide packages list to flesh these sections ?

> where some applications or tools can be part of several sub-sections.
> Perhaps applications which could be used in nearly all sub-sections
> could go into a "General" or "Common" Section.

We absolutly try to avoid catch-all subsections because they tend to be
used as dumping ground for anything that do not fit in the structure
instead of leading people to improve the structure.

> In parallel to section "Science" have a section "Education".

"Education" is listed in the draft:

  Education
  Educational and training software.
  gtypist, gcompris, quiz

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #200 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: frapietra@alice.it, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:31:18 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:45:44PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences" 
> mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there 
> are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view - 
> mpqc. At any event, there are chemists under the "Science section" umbrella.

If you meant the wording "Software for natural and social sciences,
humanities, etc." somehow imply that chemistry does not belong here,
by all means please provide a better description that cover Chemistry
and Physics as well!

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #205 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

To: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:52:07 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello Debian Science people,
> > 
> > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> > opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
> > 
> > The relevant sections are:
> > 
> >   Mathematics [was:Math]
> >   Mathematics-related software.
> >   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
> > 
> >   Science
> >   Software for natural and social sciences, humanities, etc.
> >   ncbi-epcr, earth3d, therion
> > 
> > Please send comment to bug #361418.
> > 
> 
> >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy.

There is IMHO no need. Why not use the freedesktop.org's menu
specification as reference? This would help to allow a user an easier
orientation.

> I think Mathematics
> is also part of Science. 

ACK.

> At least for application like axiom, octave,
> mathematica, ...
> So having a Math section in parallel to Science could be for more
> "calulator" oriented SW.

I don't think so. I know, OOo Math isn't a real scientific software. But
there are people who think, that Ex**l is a tool for graphical analysis
of measurement values. I believe, nobody has the _real_ definition for
what is really scientific software. So IMHO it doesn't make sense to
have a Mathematics section inside and outside Science/Education. Or do
you know a definition to know the difference?

> In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> and not education.

I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
"teaching". For me, there is no difference between Science and
Education. Where is the difference IYO?

> Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> 	Mathematics
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 	Chemistry
> 	Astronomics
> 	Geology
> 	...
> where some applications or tools can be part of several sub-sections.
> Perhaps applications which could be used in nearly all sub-sections
> could go into a "General" or "Common" Section.
> 
> In parallel to section "Science" have a section "Education".

And there also:
	Mathematics
	Physics
	Bio
	Chemistry
	Astronomics
	Geology
	...
?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

just my 2 cents
Regards, Daniel

Message #210 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:58:45 +0200

Am Samstag, den 13.05.2006, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> Hello Debian people,
> 
> I am proposing a new version of the new Debian menu structure proposal
> incorporating changes that have been proposed.
> 
> Here the change from the previous draft:
> 
> - change 'HAM Radio' to 'Amateur Radio'.
> - revert change 'Educational' -> 'Education'.
> - add 'Electronics' in place of 'Technical/Electronics'.
> - add 'Engineering' in place of 'Technical/Engineering'.
> - change 'Mathematical' to 'Mathematics'.
> - revert change 'Scientific' -> 'Science'.
> - rename 'Games/Arcade' to 'Games/Action'.
> - 'Modules' splited in 'FVWM Modules' and 'Window Maker'.
> - Lot of typo fix, courtesy of debian-l10-english.
> 
> The changes from the current menu structure are listed below.
> The full listing is in attachment.
[..]

I did not check it: IMHO it would make sense to try to be compatible (in
parts) with the freedesktop.org menu specification and the structure
they propose.

IMHO it would make orientation easier for users. But this is of course,
just my personal opinion.

Regards, Daniel

Message #215 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:07:37 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:58:45PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 13.05.2006, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> I did not check it: IMHO it would make sense to try to be compatible (in
> parts) with the freedesktop.org menu specification and the structure
> they propose.

But the freedesktop.org does not propose any structure.  Instead it
mandates a list of categories that should be used by .menu files to build
menus, the .menu files specifying the layout and the way categories are
presented to the users. The menu-xdg Debian package provide a
menu-method that generate a .menu file that implement the Debian menu
layout in term of the freedesktop.org menu draft.

[[The most observant among you will note this is mostly reprint from an
earlier post in this buglog]]

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #220 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: frapietra@alice.it

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 14 May 2006 21:24:53 +0200

Hello,

On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:57, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert. 
> 
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology" 
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
> 
> I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is 
> science, or ideally it should be. Most discoveries spring from students doing 
> a thesis work, which is education. Arrhenius set the a large section of the 
> basis of chemistry (and thereby of biology chemistry agronomy etc etc) while 
> a student under education (although - being too much ahead of the times - he 
> was blamed for his ideas).
> 
Reading your answer I think I see our small differences in opinion:
Doing a thesis is based on "Research" and done in an "Research
Environment" ==> Science.  The thesis itself becomes part of the big
knowledge pool and improves the wisdom available.

Education, at least from my point of view, is more you do in schools
and/or by learning.
More something like:
one learns how to do something.  How to multiply, what is and how to do
analysis or geometry, what happens in a flower, what are the basic
components of a cell, basic elements and reactions in chemistry,
principls of mechanics/optics/electronics.

I think if one looks from a single users, then everything could be put
under education because you learn always or you are lost.

> Surely what I am saying is not exhaustive. It is a matter to think about for a 
> while. I am answering while doing chemistry, thus short of time.
> 
[snip]

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #225 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:28:38 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:07 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:58:45PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 13.05.2006, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> > I did not check it: IMHO it would make sense to try to be compatible (in
> > parts) with the freedesktop.org menu specification and the structure
> > they propose.
> 
> But the freedesktop.org does not propose any structure.

This is not completely true. It defines categories and sub-categories.
There is also a structure. But I agree, that it does not explicitly
define/propose a structure. But I also meant, that you should maybe
think about to be compatible with their category naming.

> Instead it
> mandates a list of categories that should be used by .menu files to build
> menus, the .menu files specifying the layout and the way categories are
> presented to the users. The menu-xdg Debian package provide a
> menu-method that generate a .menu file that implement the Debian menu
> layout in term of the freedesktop.org menu draft.
> 
> [[The most observant among you will note this is mostly reprint from an
> earlier post in this buglog]]

Sorry. I just read the posts I got via bugs-dist list. I will read the
complete bug-report.

Regards, Daniel

Message #230 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 14 May 2006 21:55:42 +0200

On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Hello Debian Science people,
> > > 
> > > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > > menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> > > opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
> > > 
> > > The relevant sections are:
> > > 
> > >   Mathematics [was:Math]
> > >   Mathematics-related software.
> > >   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
> > > 
> > >   Science
> > >   Software for natural and social sciences, humanities, etc.
> > >   ncbi-epcr, earth3d, therion
> > > 
> > > Please send comment to bug #361418.
> > > 
> > 
> > >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> > It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy.
> 
> There is IMHO no need. Why not use the freedesktop.org's menu
> specification as reference? This would help to allow a user an easier
> orientation.
> 

If I remember correct, I had a look at this definitions near the
beginning of the year.
There was also a thread talking about this categorisation suggested.
Pros and cons.

I assume this is based on 2 big groups where one put people in
	50%:  education  <=>  teaching
	50$:  education  <=>  anything

See below.

> > I think Mathematics
> > is also part of Science. 
> 
> ACK.
> 
> > At least for application like axiom, octave,
> > mathematica, ...
> > So having a Math section in parallel to Science could be for more
> > "calulator" oriented SW.
> 
> I don't think so. I know, OOo Math isn't a real scientific software. But
> there are people who think, that Ex**l is a tool for graphical analysis
> of measurement values. I believe, nobody has the _real_ definition for
> what is really scientific software. So IMHO it doesn't make sense to
> have a Mathematics section inside and outside Science/Education. Or do
> you know a definition to know the difference?

No I have no definition.

Excel is as you said a OO front-end.  It is a simple spreadsheet tool
crafted by functions from lots of categories:  math, graphics, ...
to do final calculations and report preparation in this front-end.

One can also program a chess program in TeX.  It is slow, but works.

> 
> > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > and not education.
> 
> I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
> "teaching". For me, there is no difference between Science and
> Education. Where is the difference IYO?
> 

Exactly this is the key:
	Education:	teaching
		     you are teached/trained to be able to do something
		     or to teach others
		     improve individual wisdom/skills.

	Science:	research
		     you apply the above to find something new.
		     improve the global pool of wisdom.

> > Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> > 	Mathematics
> > 	Physics
> > 	Bio
> > 	Chemistry
> > 	Astronomics
> > 	Geology
> > 	...
> > where some applications or tools can be part of several sub-sections.
> > Perhaps applications which could be used in nearly all sub-sections
> > could go into a "General" or "Common" Section.
> > 
> > In parallel to section "Science" have a section "Education".
> 
> And there also:
> 	Mathematics
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 	Chemistry
> 	Astronomics
> 	Geology
> 	...
> ?
> 
> Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> 

Yes, this looks strange, you are correct.
But think about these Section, Sub-section, ... names like tag
attributes. You are free to order the tree in any way you want.
Science
	Math
	Physics
	Bio
	...
Education
	Math
	Physics
	Bio

is equal to

Science
	Math
		Education
		Research
	Physics
		Education
		Research
	Bio
		Education
		Research
	...


Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #235 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 23:22:49 +0300

Daniel Leidert wrote:

> This is not completely true. It defines categories and sub-categories.
> There is also a structure. But I agree, that it does not explicitly
> define/propose a structure. But I also meant, that you should maybe
> think about to be compatible with their category naming.

I do not consider these two as incompatible. More like Freedesktop.org
menu fits inside Debian Menu. Minus the shortcoming of not being strict
enough.

Message #240 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:26:07 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:

[..]
> > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > and not education.
> > 
> > I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
> > "teaching". For me, there is no difference between Science and
> > Education. Where is the difference IYO?
> > 
> 
> Exactly this is the key:
> 
> 	Education:	teaching
> 		     you are teached/trained to be able to do something
> 		     or to teach others
> 		     improve individual wisdom/skills.
> 
> 	Science:	research
> 		     you apply the above to find something new.
> 		     improve the global pool of wisdom.

I know that opinion of course. But "education" with the meaning of
"higher education" isn't that far away from "science". I know, people
have different opinions here. Just a few questions:

Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
is a (software realized) calculator with scientific functions (like
those who are mostly used in education)?

Just think about, that you _must_ define the answer for at least the
first question if you make a difference in Debian's menu between
education and science. I'm really not happy with dividing between them,
because IMHO there is no clear difference.

Regards, Daniel

Message #245 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:58:05 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:57:31PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert. 
> 
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology" 
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
> 
> I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is 
> science, or ideally it should be. Most discoveries spring from students doing 
> a thesis work, which is education. Arrhenius set the a large section of the 
> basis of chemistry (and thereby of biology chemistry agronomy etc etc) while 
> a student under education (although - being too much ahead of the times - he 
> was blamed for his ideas).

In the context of menu, we should consider the categorisation from a
functionnal perspective: " How the user interact with the tool ? "

Software that assert knowledge and/or capability of users
(arithmetic quizzing, typing tutor) or whose purpose is to teach a
determined set of knowledge to the user are in Education. 

Software that let the user to observe, process or compute freely with
scientific data are in Science.

Of course scientific softwares will be used for educational purpose,
and some softwares will have both purpose.

Consider the Games section:
Instead of classifying games by topic (Sci-Fi, Heroic Fantaisy, animals,
cartoon,etc.) which would lead to an almost infinite list with a lot of
intersection) we classify them by the way the user interact with the
software (Action, Board, Card, etc.).

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #250 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 23:24:14 +0200

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 09:28:38PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:07 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> > On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:58:45PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > > Am Samstag, den 13.05.2006, 13:26 +0200 schrieb Bill Allombert:
> > > I did not check it: IMHO it would make sense to try to be compatible (in
> > > parts) with the freedesktop.org menu specification and the structure
> > > they propose.
> > 
> > But the freedesktop.org does not propose any structure.
> 
> This is not completely true. It defines categories and sub-categories.
> There is also a structure. But I agree, that it does not explicitly

There is a concept of "related categories" but not of sub-categories.
This do not make a structure (i.e. a tree).

> define/propose a structure. But I also meant, that you should maybe
> think about to be compatible with their category naming.

But they do not propose user-visible naming for the categories,
only code names like "ConsoleOnly" or "KidsGames".

Historically, Freedesktop categories names originated from KDE menu
names that were chosen by looking heavily at Debian menu, and they still
carry problems that are found in the current Debian menu subpolicy.
I think we should move forward rather than waiting the rest of the 
free software community to do the job for us.

Due to this legacy, Debian menu section are often also Freedesktop categories
codename. However while Debian has a "Graphics" subsection and there is
a Freedesktop category "Graphics", Freedesktop does not mandate at all
that the category is presented to the user by the string "Graphics".
Indeed the exact string is defined by a .menu file which can choose
to present the category as "Image-Related softwares" or anything else.

So the consistency of naming between Debian menu section and Freedesktop
categories is purely formal and not very useful.

Debian should define a structure in accordance to the packages we
actually provide rather than in accordance to an abstract specification.

Cheers,
Bill.

Message #255 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 14 May 2006 23:42:24 +0200

Hello,

On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> 
> [..]
> > > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > > and not education.
> > > 
> > > I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
> > > "teaching". For me, there is no difference between Science and
> > > Education. Where is the difference IYO?
> > > 
> > 
> > Exactly this is the key:
> > 
> > 	Education:	teaching
> > 		     you are teached/trained to be able to do something
> > 		     or to teach others
> > 		     improve individual wisdom/skills.
> > 
> > 	Science:	research
> > 		     you apply the above to find something new.
> > 		     improve the global pool of wisdom.
> 
> I know that opinion of course. But "education" with the meaning of
> "higher education" isn't that far away from "science". I know, people
> have different opinions here. Just a few questions:
> 
> Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
> software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
> is a (software realized) calculator with scientific functions (like
> those who are mostly used in education)?
> 

As far as I understood the basic rules to tag applications,
the answer is not a "one ot the other" decision.
The chemical structureditor can be used for both purposes.
Thus add the application in 2 entries of the tree.

A "calculator" is a common tool used in nearly all categories.
Such a global tool covers a few percent from lots of categories.
Thus, this a candidate to go into a section like
	Science
		Common or Global or Misc
or
	Science
		Math
			Calculator
and
	Education
		Math
			Calculator


compared with a tool like axiom, which would go in "Science -> Math"
only.

Due to my opinion, that when doing Science Research you know the basics
where in Teaching/Education you have more applications which tell you
about the basics.
The latter is like:
how to do integration or differentiation, waht are Newton's rules in
gravity
the first is like:
when I apply several of the basic rules to these measurements under
given constraints
then one can proof the existance of a sub-particle for a few nano
seconds in nuclear physics.

> Just think about, that you _must_ define the answer for at least the
> first question if you make a difference in Debian's menu between
> education and science. I'm really not happy with dividing between them,
> because IMHO there is no clear difference.
> 

I know that may be tricky and you are right.
That's why I try to separate by learning/teaching already known basics
:== Education  and  applying that find (new) rules or to improve exising
rules :== Science/Research by top-down classification going from most
global/abstract to more specific/specialised.

For example. lots of math aplications one can use in physics, chemistry,
bio, astronomy, ... too as compuatation is very common.  The tricky
point may be to find an abstraction.
An application knowing all the keppler rules where you can focus on high
level astronomical things would be category Astronomy.  But you can use
a programmable common language and add lots of functions as addional
modules.  Without the modules is would be Math.

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #260 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

To: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 01:25:57 +0200

Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:

[..]
> > Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
> > software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
> > is a (software realized) calculator with scientific functions (like
> > those who are mostly used in education)?
> > 
> 
> As far as I understood the basic rules to tag applications,
> the answer is not a "one ot the other" decision.
> The chemical structureditor can be used for both purposes.
> Thus add the application in 2 entries of the tree.

Uhh. Probably not a good idea. I guess, then you end up with 90% of the
application in both entries of the tree and just 10% in one or the other
entry.

> Due to my opinion, that when doing Science Research you know the basics
> where in Teaching/Education you have more applications which tell you
> about the basics.

Yes. But these are the extremas. I don't think, that you can take bunch
of applications and say, what the user itself knows about the basics or
for what the user uses the software.

> The latter is like:
> how to do integration or differentiation, waht are Newton's rules in
> gravity
> the first is like:
> when I apply several of the basic rules to these measurements under
> given constraints
> then one can proof the existance of a sub-particle for a few nano
> seconds in nuclear physics.

Yes. But these are clear examples. I have a repository full of chemistry
related packages. One e.g. supports a bunch of quantum chemistry
packages. But it is designed to help users of these packages. The
application itself doesn't teach anything, but it helps teaching quantum
chemistry packages. So I just need a clear definition, when to put an
application into Education and when to put an application into Science.

> > Just think about, that you _must_ define the answer for at least the
> > first question if you make a difference in Debian's menu between
> > education and science. I'm really not happy with dividing between them,
> > because IMHO there is no clear difference.
> > 
> 
> I know that may be tricky and you are right.
> That's why I try to separate by learning/teaching already known basics
> :== Education  and  applying that find (new) rules or to improve exising
> rules :== Science/Research by top-down classification going from most
> global/abstract to more specific/specialised.

Ok. But staying at the example of a simple structures editor (I know
more then 6 in the OS scene): It is not designed to teach the user nor
is it designed to find new rules or improve anything. It's just a tool
used in educational and scientific institutions.

> For example. lots of math aplications one can use in physics, chemistry,
> bio, astronomy, ... too as compuatation is very common.  The tricky
> point may be to find an abstraction.

Ok. But in this case it's IMHO easier.

> An application knowing all the keppler rules where you can focus on high
> level astronomical things would be category Astronomy.

If that's the main function/feature/job, ACK.

> But you can use
> a programmable common language and add lots of functions as addional
> modules.  Without the modules is would be Math.

Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
Education. All other applications go into Science, independent if they
are used in school or university science education or for research.

Regards, Daniel

Message #265 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:56:25 +1000

Hi,

> I think Mathematics is also part of Science.

FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bound to modelling the physical world.

Certainly science _uses_ mathematics, in the same way that engineering
uses physics, and so on.  But mathematics as a whole is somewhat broader.

Anyway, I'd be very happy to see Mathematics and Science kept separate
as they are now.  I do claim that mathematics is very different from the
other disciplines that have been mentioned, in a way that physics, chemistry,
biology and so on are not.

b.

Message #270 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.Debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:57:25 +1000

Oh, and a minor typo:

> The relevant sections are:
> 
>   Mathematics [was:Math]
>   Mathematics-related software.
>   gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides

The "snappea" package has two "p"s.

Ben (the snappea maintainer).

Message #275 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Science and Education by tasks, not by disciplines.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:33:23 +0900

Le Sun, May 14, 2006 at 09:55:42PM +0200, Thomas Walter a écrit :
> Science
> 	Math
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 	...
> Education
> 	Math
> 	Physics
> 	Bio
> 
> is equal to
> 
> Science
> 	Math
> 		Education
> 		Research
> 	Physics
> 		Education
> 		Research
> 	Bio
> 		Education
> 		Research
> 	...

Dear all,

Having read the thread, I think that one solution is to take the same
approach as for the Games section. Then, if the resulting number of
categories is a bit too much for a 14'' screen, one can part them
between Science and Education, by putting a line between what is useful
mostly for professionnals, and what is not. For instance:

Science
  Bibliography
  Databases
  Imaging
  Modelling
  ...

Education
  Discovery
  Quizzes
  Training
  ...
  
In a separate discussion, I was questionning the feasability of moving
some programs from Science to Science/NCBI (National Center for
Biotechnological Information), and I was pointed out that on a
multi-user system, the persons who did not install the package will not
necessary know what NCBI mean. This is exactly what will happen on a
computer shared by a researcher and his children. Separating Science and
Education would helps to solve this.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles

Message #280 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org>

To: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Moving the NCBI programs in a subsection of Applications/Science

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:44:41 +0900

Le Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:58:32PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:10:36AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > My reasonning was that if people install the packages ncbi-tools-*,
> > they necessarly know what the NCBI is.
> 
> It means at least one person on the machine knows. The other users
> will see a cryptic "NCBI" and think "WTF is that?".

Hi,

I see mostly two cases when it could happen:

- At home, on a computer shared by the family.
- In shared computers of a multidisciplinary faculty.

For the first case, I proposed in another discussion of this bug to
separate Science and Education.

For the second, well, I have the feeling that it is unavoidable. If the
packages are left within the Science subsection, they outnumber and
dillute the others anyway (my screen is not big enough for displaying
the Science menu when I have those packages installed), which will even
annoy the other users more.

One solution could be to separate them in a case-by-case basis in
categories such as "Sequence Analysis" and "Database querying". Anyway,
the opinion of the package maintainer is very important. Maybe I should
file a wishlist bug with a tentative categorisation?

-- 
Charles

Message #285 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:01:12 +1000

Ben Burton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
> 
> FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> is not bound to modelling the physical world.

I think of new ways to try and simulate things faster or in a simpler
way. Then i'll write the simulation and try the ideas and measure its
performance and accuracy. This applied mathematics is very much like
a real-world engineering problem with hypothesis and experimentation.

> Certainly science _uses_ mathematics, in the same way that engineering
> uses physics, and so on.  But mathematics as a whole is somewhat broader.
> 
> Anyway, I'd be very happy to see Mathematics and Science kept separate
> as they are now.  I do claim that mathematics is very different from the
> other disciplines that have been mentioned, in a way that physics, chemistry,
> biology and so on are not.

Message #290 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:57:42 +1000

> >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> >is not bound to modelling the physical world.
> 
> I think of new ways to try and simulate things faster or in a simpler
> way. Then i'll write the simulation and try the ideas and measure its
> performance and accuracy. This applied mathematics is very much like
> a real-world engineering problem with hypothesis and experimentation.

Hmm, perhaps I didn't express myself properly.  Of course, any
discipline can use hypothesis and experimentation, from the arts to
astrology.

What I mean is: in the physical sciences, hypothesis and experimentation
are fundamental to building "scientific truth".  This is because the
basis of science is trying to understand the physical world, formulating
theories that explain what is seen, and then testing and refining these
theories.  This is what the "scientific method" is for.

On the other hand, "mathematical truth" is based on pure logic and
proof.  It need not have any link to the physical world (though it often
does).  Experimentation can be a useful guide, but it is certainly not
essential, and indeed experimental results are generally not accepted as
a method of establishing mathematical facts.  The result of all of this
is that mathematicians can be more sure of their truths than scientists,
but on the other hand their work is often somewhat less useful from a
practical point of view.

Ben.

Message #295 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Pietra <frapietra@alice.it>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au>, 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 06:42:06 +0200

To answer here, taking into account other suggestions, i believe that the less 
we cut science into pieces the better the result. Specialisation has resulted 
to be a negative trend in university education (all over the world). When 
industry seeks for a fresh graduate biologist, industry seeks for a strong 
general background, not specialisation.

That said, I would not go much farther in cutting sciences into pieces than

Mathematics
Physics
Biology
Medicine

Maybe I am overlooking one or two important "cuts". Suggest. These sections 
allow interdisciplinary contacts. Today, more perhaps than ever, it is hard 
to do good science that is not interdisciplinary. The more you cut into 
pieces, the more you isolate scientists because, for economy reasons, one 
tends to scan only his specialized section.

These are my ideas of an university organic chemist  with parallel education 
in biological sciences. In particular, i am against "tasks" with respect 
to "disciplines". Tasks change with small changes in the society. Disciplines 
are for a long time a reference point.

regards
francesco pietra

On Monday 15 May 2006 04:57, Ben Burton wrote:
> > >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> > >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> > >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> > >is not bound to modelling the physical world.
> >
> > I think of new ways to try and simulate things faster or in a simpler
> > way. Then i'll write the simulation and try the ideas and measure its
> > performance and accuracy. This applied mathematics is very much like
> > a real-world engineering problem with hypothesis and experimentation.
>
> Hmm, perhaps I didn't express myself properly.  Of course, any
> discipline can use hypothesis and experimentation, from the arts to
> astrology.
>
> What I mean is: in the physical sciences, hypothesis and experimentation
> are fundamental to building "scientific truth".  This is because the
> basis of science is trying to understand the physical world, formulating
> theories that explain what is seen, and then testing and refining these
> theories.  This is what the "scientific method" is for.
>
> On the other hand, "mathematical truth" is based on pure logic and
> proof.  It need not have any link to the physical world (though it often
> does).  Experimentation can be a useful guide, but it is certainly not
> essential, and indeed experimental results are generally not accepted as
> a method of establishing mathematical facts.  The result of all of this
> is that mathematicians can be more sure of their truths than scientists,
> but on the other hand their work is often somewhat less useful from a
> practical point of view.
>
> Ben.

Message #300 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Francesco Pietra <frapietra@alice.it>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Cc: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 06:52:12 +0200

Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely mathematics. But 
not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To develop novel theoretical 
chemistry, new mathematics has to be invented. The same for 
physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had to invent (I know that in some 
quarters the invention is attributed to another scientists, but the latter 
was a professional physicist too) infinitesimal calculation.

I reiterate to avoid cutting into pieces more than for the fundamental 
sciences, and put mathematics in (i am not a professional mathematician)

regards
francesco pietra


On Monday 15 May 2006 01:56, Ben Burton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
>
> FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> is not bound to modelling the physical world.
>
> Certainly science _uses_ mathematics, in the same way that engineering
> uses physics, and so on.  But mathematics as a whole is somewhat broader.
>
> Anyway, I'd be very happy to see Mathematics and Science kept separate
> as they are now.  I do claim that mathematics is very different from the
> other disciplines that have been mentioned, in a way that physics,
> chemistry, biology and so on are not.
>
> b.

Message #305 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: Francesco Pietra <frapietra@alice.it>

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:31:17 +1000

> Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely
> mathematics. But not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To
> develop novel theoretical chemistry, new mathematics has to be
> invented. The same for physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had
> to invent (I know that in some quarters the invention is attributed to
> another scientists, but the latter was a professional physicist too)
> infinitesimal calculation.

In my mathematics research, I am currently working on problems in
computational geometry and topology.  The work I am doing is largely
algorithmics.  Moreover, to obtain new topological results, new data
structures had to be invented.

This does not mean that algorithmics is a branch of topology.  Nor does
it mean that data structures is a branch of topology.  And it would
certainly be very strange for a computer scientist to find all their
material on algorithms and data structures filed under "Geometry and
Topology".

Ben.

Message #310 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 15 May 2006 22:20:23 +0200

Hello,

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 01:25, Daniel Leidert wrote:

[snip]

> 
> Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
> applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
> langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
> Education. All other applications go into Science, independent if they
> are used in school or university science education or for research.
> 

Yes, that seems to be a good approach and has also a clear and simple
definition how to do the classification between education related and
science related.

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #315 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Walter <t.walter@nefkom.net>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: 15 May 2006 22:44:27 +0200

Hello,

On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:

[snip]

> 
> > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > and not education.
> > Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> > 	Mathematics
> > 	Physics
> > 	Bio
> > 	Chemistry
> > 	Astronomics
> > 	Geology
> 
> Could you provide packages list to flesh these sections ?
> 

Yes,

either see at
	https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuScientists

or perhaps at a very old page about SAL
	http://sal.jyu.fi/sal1.shtml

[snip]

Kind Regards,
Thomas

Message #320 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: debian-science@lists.debian.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:25:37 +0300

I actually find splitting "Science" a good idea.

I did a little research and came up with this list of possible
subsections, along with example fields they cover:

Astronomy
 * Astrodynamics
 * Astronomy
 * Astrophysics
 * Cosmology
 * Radio astronomy

Biology
 * Anatomy
 * Bioinformatics
 * Botany
 * Ecology
 * Genetics

Chemistry
 * Analytical chemistry
 * Biochemistry
 * Inorganic chemistry
 * Materials science
 * Organic chemistry

Geoscience
 * Geodesy
 * Geography
 * Geology
 * Hydrology
 * Meteorology

Medicine
 * Anatomy
 * Dermatology
 * Gynecology
 * Immunology
 * Neurology

Physics
 * Acoustics
 * Cryogenics
 * Dynamics
 * Mechanics
 * Nuclear physics

Social
 * Anthropology
 * Demography
 * Economics
 * Geography
 * Law

We also have "Electronics", "Engineering", and "Mathematics" that are
somewhat subject to discussion, but could also go into "Science",
depending on how broad your definition of "Science" is.

I did not include "Education", because I do not consider this section
appropriate for "Science". It is more likely to contain quizzes,
student-tracking software etc., rather than something an expert is
likely to use.

Message #325 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Linas Žvirblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:03:18 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I went on and made a list of applications that are currently found in
"Science" [science] and another one with these applications roughly
sorted into sections [science_sorted].

The short version:

 Analysis [10]
 Astronomy [12]
 Biology [16]
 Chemistry [11]
 Geoscience [5]
 Medicine [1]
 Physics [5]
 Social [0]
 Undetermined [4]
 Total: 64

Note that this is a number of different _packages_ that contain entries
in "Science". Many packages contain more than one entry, some are built
from single source, etc. Take with a grain of salt.

Now more on my findings.

I was surprised not to find a single application suitable for "Social"
section. There certainly are some, but they seem to be scattered all
over the menu. "gnomesword" is in "Education", for example.

There may be intersection between "Text", found in current menu draft,
and what "Social" should be. Currently "Text" mostly contains
dictionaries, but if "Social" is to be created, it is likely to contain
dictionaries only. Therefore "Text" needs to be revisited.

I have only located a single medicine-related application, but there are
more in other sections. The whole bunch of gnumed-* packages is a good
example.

I added another section named "Analysis", that contains general data
analysis/plotting/calculation applications. I find them very similar to
what is found in "Math", so I consider moving "Mathematics" to "Science"
 a good idea.

"Undetermined" is by no means a section name. This is where I listed
applications that I think might belong to some other section, or could
not determine an appropriate one.

 klogic        - electronics
 megahal       - ???
 pybliographer - data management
 praat         - ???

In my previous post I suggested moving "Electronics" and "Engineering"
to "Science". My words are still valid.

I would prefer to continue this discussion on debian-policy, as it is
getting hard to follow.

[science (text/plain, inline)]

arb                     - [Biology] Integrated package for data handling and analysis
avida-qt-viewer         - qt viewer for avida
blast2                  - Basic Local Alignment Search Tool
boxshade                - [Biology] Pretty-printing of multiple sequence alignments
cassbeam                - A program for Cassegrain antenna modelling
celestia                - A real-time visual space simulation (KDE frontend)
celestia-glut           - A real-time visual space simulation (GLUT frontend)
celestia-gnome          - A real-time visual space simulation (Gnome frontend)
chemtool                - Chemical structures drawing program
clustalw                - [Biology] Global multiple nucleotide or peptide sequence alignment
clustalx                - [Biology] GUI for clustalw
dx                      - OpenDX (IBM Visualization Data Explorer) - main package
earth3d                 - Map client displaying a 3D model of the world
fityk                   - general-purpose nonlinear curve fitting and data analysis
g3data                  - extract data from scanned graphs
garlic                  - A visualization program for biomolecules
gdis                    - molecular display
gdpc                    - visualiser of molecular dynamic simulations
ghemical                - A GNOME molecular modelling environment
gperiodic               - periodic table application
ifrit                   - a powerful tool for visualizing 3-dimensional data sets
imview                  - Image viewing and analysis application
ygraph                  - Visualize one-dimensional scientific data
kalzium                 - chemistry teaching tool for KDE
kboincspy               - monitoring utility for the BOINC client
klogic                  - digital circuit editor and simulator for KDE
kstars                  - desktop planetarium for KDE
kst-bin                 - A KDE application used for displaying scientific data
kxterm                  - Cernlib's KUIP terminal emulator
leksbot                 - An explanatory dictionary of botanic and biological terms
libncbi6-dev            - NCBI libraries for biology applications (development files)
lynkeos.app             - Tool to process planetary astronomical images for GNUstep
loki                    - [Biology] MCMC linkage analysis on general pedigrees
megahal                 - conversation simulator that can learn as you talk to it
mn-fit                  - interactive analysis package for fitting data and histograms
mssstest                - Normalisation of disease scores for patients with Multiple Sclerosis
ncbi-tools-bin          - NCBI libraries for biology applications (text-based utilities)
ncbi-tools-x11          - NCBI libraries for biology applications (X-based utilities)
njplot                  - [Biology] A tree drawing program 
paje.app                - generic visualization tool (Gantt chart and more)
paw                     - Physics Analysis Workstation - a graphical analysis program
paw++                   - Physics Analysis Workstation (Lesstif-enhanced version)
perlprimer              - [Biology] graphical design of primers for PCR
pybliographer           - tool for manipulating bibliographic databases
pymol                   - An OpenGL Molecular Graphics System written in Python
polyxmass-bin           - Mass spectrometry framework - GUI program
praat                   - program for speech analysis and synthesis
qgis                    - Geographic Information System (GIS)
qtdmm                   - GUI for digital multimeter
rasmol                  - Visualize biological macromolecules
saods9                  - image display tool for astronomy
seaview                 - [Biology] A multiple sequence alignment editor
spacechart              - Star map viewer and navigator
starplot                - 3-dimensional perspective star map viewer
stars                   - star map program that draws the night sky
stellarium              - real-time photo-realistic sky generator
survex-aven             - sophisticated cave survey viewer for Survex
survex-svxedit          - survey data editor for Survex
therion                 - Cave surveying - 2D and 3D drawing software
viewmol                 - A graphical front end for computational chemistry programs.
xdrawchem               - Chemical structures and reactions editor
xmakemol                - A program for visualizing atomic and molecular systems
xmakemol-gl             - A program for visualizing atomic and molecular systems
xorsa                   - tool for Celestial Mechanics investigations

[science_sorted (text/plain, inline)]

Analysis [10]
 dx                      - OpenDX (IBM Visualization Data Explorer) - main package
 fityk                   - general-purpose nonlinear curve fitting and data analysis
 g3data                  - extract data from scanned graphs
 imview                  - Image viewing and analysis application
 ygraph                  - Visualize one-dimensional scientific data
 kboincspy               - monitoring utility for the BOINC client
 kst-bin                 - A KDE application used for displaying scientific data
 mn-fit                  - interactive analysis package for fitting data and histograms
 paje.app                - generic visualization tool (Gantt chart and more)
 qtdmm                   - GUI for digital multimeter

Astronomy [12]
 cassbeam                - A program for Cassegrain antenna modelling
 celestia                - A real-time visual space simulation (KDE frontend)
 celestia-glut           - A real-time visual space simulation (GLUT frontend)
 celestia-gnome          - A real-time visual space simulation (Gnome frontend)
 kstars                  - desktop planetarium for KDE
 lynkeos.app             - Tool to process planetary astronomical images for GNUstep
 saods9                  - image display tool for astronomy
 spacechart              - Star map viewer and navigator
 starplot                - 3-dimensional perspective star map viewer
 stars                   - star map program that draws the night sky
 stellarium              - real-time photo-realistic sky generator
 xorsa                   - tool for Celestial Mechanics investigations

Biology [16]
 arb                     - [Biology] Integrated package for data handling and analysis
 avida-qt-viewer         - qt viewer for avida
 blast2                  - Basic Local Alignment Search Tool
 boxshade                - [Biology] Pretty-printing of multiple sequence alignments
 clustalw                - [Biology] Global multiple nucleotide or peptide sequence alignment
 clustalx                - [Biology] GUI for clustalw
 garlic                  - A visualization program for biomolecules
 leksbot                 - An explanatory dictionary of botanic and biological terms
 libncbi6-dev            - NCBI libraries for biology applications (development files)
 loki                    - [Biology] MCMC linkage analysis on general pedigrees
 ncbi-tools-bin          - NCBI libraries for biology applications (text-based utilities)
 ncbi-tools-x11          - NCBI libraries for biology applications (X-based utilities)
 njplot                  - [Biology] A tree drawing program 
 perlprimer              - [Biology] graphical design of primers for PCR
 rasmol                  - Visualize biological macromolecules
 seaview                 - [Biology] A multiple sequence alignment editor

Chemistry [11]
 chemtool                - Chemical structures drawing program
 gdis                    - molecular display
 ghemical                - A GNOME molecular modelling environment
 gperiodic               - periodic table application
 kalzium                 - chemistry teaching tool for KDE
 pymol                   - An OpenGL Molecular Graphics System written in Python
 polyxmass-bin           - Mass spectrometry framework - GUI program
 viewmol                 - A graphical front end for computational chemistry programs.
 xdrawchem               - Chemical structures and reactions editor
 xmakemol                - A program for visualizing atomic and molecular systems
 xmakemol-gl             - A program for visualizing atomic and molecular systems

Geoscience [5]
 earth3d                 - Map client displaying a 3D model of the world
 qgis                    - Geographic Information System (GIS)
 survex-aven             - sophisticated cave survey viewer for Survex
 survex-svxedit          - survey data editor for Survex
 therion                 - Cave surveying - 2D and 3D drawing software

Medicine [1]
 mssstest                - Normalisation of disease scores for patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Physics [5]
 gdpc                    - visualiser of molecular dynamic simulations
 ifrit                   - a powerful tool for visualizing 3-dimensional data sets
 kxterm                  - Cernlib's KUIP terminal emulator
 paw                     - Physics Analysis Workstation - a graphical analysis program
 paw++                   - Physics Analysis Workstation (Lesstif-enhanced version)

Social [0]

Undetermined [4]
 klogic                  - digital circuit editor and simulator for KDE
 megahal                 - conversation simulator that can learn as you talk to it
 pybliographer           - tool for manipulating bibliographic databases
 praat                   - program for speech analysis and synthesis

Message #330 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: Linas ??virblis <0x0007@gmail.com>, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-science@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:15:20 +1000

> I added another section named "Analysis", that contains general data
> analysis/plotting/calculation applications. I find them very similar to
> what is found in "Math", so I consider moving "Mathematics" to "Science"
>  a good idea.

Again: we see that scientists make heavy use of mathematics, so all
mathematics packages should be classified under "Science"?  We might as
well file all mathematics packages under "Economics" for the same
reason.

I think it's wonderful that scientists get so much value out of
mathematical software, but they are not the only ones -- why does this
mean that every piece of mathematical software needs to be filed in the
science drawer?

Currently mathematics and science have their own sections in all the
places I frequent (debian archive sections, the KDE menu, the debian menu
system); this seems quite sane to me, and it's not clear to me why this
needs to be changed.

Ben.

Message #335 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org, 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:09:01 +0200

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:10:36AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, May 14, 2006 at 04:47:00PM +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:36:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > The packages ncbi-tools-bin and ncbi-tools-x11 have many many menu
> > > entries. Do you think that it would make sense to create a "NCBI"
> > > subsection in the Science section?
> > 
> > Note that this is beyond the scope of the Debian menu structure, since
> > the Debian menu sub-policy allows packages to use new third-level
> > sections for private purpose.
> > 
> > The criterion to add a new (unofficial) section is whether:
> > 1. that will help users find the softwares.
> > 2. the new section will almost never be with exactly one or two entries
> > and often with at least five entries when it is not empty.
> > 
> > Here criterium 2 is fulfilled easily: there will be 0 or >=8 entries,
> > 
> > For criterium 1. I think "NCBI" is far too cryptic. What does that mean
> > anyway ?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> NCBI is the National Center for Biotechnology Information
> (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). Think about the Google for biological
> research.
> 
> My reasonning was that if people install the packages ncbi-tools-*, they
> necessarly know what the NCBI is. These packages are not part of complex
> dependancies networks:

I don't think we should use organisation name for section.  Sections are
supposed to relate to the function of the software. So maybe there is 
a common function theses entries uniquely perform. In the negative I
would just let them in Science.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #340 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Burton <bab@debian.org>

To: Linas ??virblis <0x0007@gmail.com>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [SPAM?]: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section

Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 00:41:29 +1000

> > I think it's wonderful that scientists get so much value out of
> > mathematical software, but they are not the only ones -- why does this
> > mean that every piece of mathematical software needs to be filed in the
> > science drawer?
> 
> Because it is not always possible to draw a clear line between
> mathematical and (other) scientific software. Often you would have to
> check both sections to locate an application. Having both of them closer
> together could reduce confusion.

For the scientist, yes.  For the economist it's more confusing, and for
the mathematician (well, this mathematician at least) it's just annoying.

Probably the best analogy I can think of is for a physicist to find all
of her applications filed under "engineering" (because, hey, physics
underlies a lot of engineering, and for some software the distinction is
not so clear).

Anyway.  I've said my piece on this.

Ben.

Message #345 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Zimmerman <nobrowser@gmail.com>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:20:07 -0700 (PDT)

I do not think this is an improvement.  The main goal for menu items is
(should be) clarity, not 100% grammatical or spelling correctness.
Conservation of screen real estate is an important secondary goal, and
should not be sacrificed to linguistic perfection.

-- 
A true pessimist won't be discouraged by a little success.

Message #350 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: SZERVÁC Attila <sas@321.hu>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.Debian.org, debian-i18n@lists.Debian.org, debian-desktop@lists.Debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:59:32 +0200 (CEST)

 My ideas:

 ++ Contrib/Applications
 ++ Contrib/Games
    ...
 ++ Non-free/Applications
 ++ Non-free/Games
    ...

 -- Text
 ++ Text Tools/Utilities/Accessories...

 sas-guest (Hungarian Translator)

Message #355 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 19:10:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear developers,

I would like to go forward soon with the proposed menu structure change.
Actually I should have done that two months ago, so I would like to
catch up a bit.

Please find the final version for approval.  Of course minor changes
will be allowed in the course of the migration if they only affect a
small number of package.

I would like to start the translation soon.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Background:
----------
The menu structure define the list of sections and subsections of
the Debian menu system (which are displayed in window-managers menus).
The official list is part of the Debian menu subpolicy.  This list is a
bit outdated, so we are proposing an update.

Proposal:
--------
Following discussion on debian-policy I am formally proposing the 
new Debian menu structure devised by Linas Zvirblis to be included
in the Debian menu subpolicy.

For transitionning from the old structure, the translate_menus system
will be reused.  

What should you do:
------------------
--- As a packages maintainer: check whether your menu entry fit in the
    new structure.
--- As a translator: check whether the new names are easier to
    understand and translate.
--- As a Debian user: check whether the new structure improve the Debian
menu system.

Thanks in advance for all your suggestions for improvement. Please send
them to this buglog so we find them.

Please find in attachment:
-------------------------
1) The proposed new menu structure

2) The translate_menus file. To experiment with the new menu structure,
copy this file to /etc/menu-methods/ and rerun update-menus, the new
menu structure will be in effect as far as renaming of section are 
concerned (this will not add/remove new sections by itself).  Note that
this is English-only until menu is translated (which will happen as soon
as the new structure is finalised and official).

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

REMOVED SECTIONS

Apps/Tools
Games/Sports
Screen/Root-window

NEW SECTIONS

Applications
  Accessibility [new]
  File Management [new]
  Mobile Devices [new]
  Network
     Network/Communication [new]
     Network/File Transfer [new]
     Network/Monitoring [new]
     Network/Web Browsing [new]
     Network/Web News [new]
  Office [new]
  Project Management [new]
  Science
     Science/Astronomy [new]
     Science/Biology [new]
     Science/Chemistry [new]
     Science/Data Analysis [new]
     Science/Engineering [new]
     Science/Geoscience [new]
     Science/Medicine [new]
     Science/Physics [new]
     Science/Social [new]
  System
     System/Hardware [new]
     System/Monitoring [new]
     System/Package Management [new]
     System/Security [new]
  TV and Radio [new]
  Video [new]
  Web Development [new]
Games
  Tools [new]
Window Maker [new]

RENAMED SECTIONS

Applications [was:Apps]
  Amateur Radio [was:Hamradio]
  Data Management [was:Databases]
  Network [was:Net]
  Science
     Science/Electronics [was:Technical]
     Science/Mathematics [was:Math]
  System
     System/Administration [was:Admin]
     System/Language Environment [was:Language-Environment]
  Terminal Emulators [was:XShells]
Games
  Action [was:Arcade]
  Blocks [was:Tetris-like]
Screen
  Saving [was:Save]
  Locking [was:Lock]
Window Managers [was:WindowManagers]
FVWM Modules [was:WindowManagers/Modules]

Acknowledgement:
---------------
This new structure was devised by Linas Zvirblis with input from the
Debian mailing list.

[structure (text/plain, attachment)]

[translate_menus (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #360 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:42:25 +0200

On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 07:10:12PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
> 
> I would like to go forward soon with the proposed menu structure change.
> Actually I should have done that two months ago, so I would like to
> catch up a bit.
> 
> Please find the final version for approval.  Of course minor changes
> will be allowed in the course of the migration if they only affect a
> small number of package.
> 
> I would like to start the translation soon.

Well It is two week now, and I did not get a single answer. Should I
consider that as a nihil obstat ?

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #365 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:02:56 -0700

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:

> Well It is two week now, and I did not get a single answer. Should I
> consider that as a nihil obstat ?

Sorry about this.  Figuring out how to move forward with Policy was the
topic of much discussion at DebConf, but also since both Manoj and I are
here and pretty busy with talks, I hadn't had a chance to look at the
mailing list much.

I think this proposal has definitely had sufficient discussion, and the
impression that I had was that it had reached consensus.  Given that, I
see no reason for it to not go into the next version of Policy.

We're going to start using a new Policy process (Manoj is going to send
out a writeup), and I'm not sure if we want to start that for the next
release or do one final cleanup release with some obvious pending stuff
and then start.  I personally think I'd prefer the latter, including this,
probably the parallel build language, and a few other things that had
already been discussed and which are basically done.

Manoj, what's your feeling on this?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #370 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:10:38 -0700

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:

> Please find the final version for approval.  Of course minor changes
> will be allowed in the course of the migration if they only affect a
> small number of package.

Could you prepare this as a patch against menu-policy.sgml?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #375 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:23:49 +0200

On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:10:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> 
> > Please find the final version for approval.  Of course minor changes
> > will be allowed in the course of the migration if they only affect a
> > small number of package.
> 
> Could you prepare this as a patch against menu-policy.sgml?

I will prepare it.  

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #380 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:57:18 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 01:23:49PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:10:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> > 
> > > Please find the final version for approval.  Of course minor changes
> > > will be allowed in the course of the migration if they only affect a
> > > small number of package.
> > 
> > Could you prepare this as a patch against menu-policy.sgml?

Here it is. Please check it matches the proposed new menu structure.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

[menu-policy.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #385 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: 361418@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:18:15 +0200

On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:02:56AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> 
> > Well It is two week now, and I did not get a single answer. Should I
> > consider that as a nihil obstat ?
> 
> Sorry about this.  Figuring out how to move forward with Policy was the
> topic of much discussion at DebConf, but also since both Manoj and I are
> here and pretty busy with talks, I hadn't had a chance to look at the
> mailing list much.
> 
> I think this proposal has definitely had sufficient discussion, and the
> impression that I had was that it had reached consensus.  Given that, I
> see no reason for it to not go into the next version of Policy.

So I consider the proposal accepted and I will prepare the changes to
the menu package. Then I will upload menu 2.1.35 and send an summary
of packages changes to debian-devel-announce.

> We're going to start using a new Policy process (Manoj is going to send
> out a writeup), and I'm not sure if we want to start that for the next
> release or do one final cleanup release with some obvious pending stuff
> and then start.  I personally think I'd prefer the latter, including this,
> probably the parallel build language, and a few other things that had
> already been discussed and which are basically done.

The menu sub-policy has always been sort of a special case anyway.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #390 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:02:02 -0700

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:

> Here it is. Please check it matches the proposed new menu structure.

It looks correct to me.  I've applied this patch to my arch repository.
Thank you!

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #397 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:44:43 +0200

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:02:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> 
> > Here it is. Please check it matches the proposed new menu structure.
> 
> It looks correct to me.  I've applied this patch to my arch repository.
> Thank you!

Actually there are two minor typos in my patch:

              <tag>Saving</tag>
              <item>
                <p>Tools for blanking the screen. Entries of screen hacks and
                   configuration GUIs should go to other appropriate sections.
                </p>
                <p>Examples: xscreensaver, xlockmore, [fillme]</p>
              </item>
              <tag>Locking</tag>
              <item>
                <p>Tools for locking the screen.</p>
                <p>Examples: xscreensaver, xlockmore, [fillme]</p>

The [fillme] fields should probably be left out of policy.

Since you commited the patch, I will upload a new menu package that
reference the new structure.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #402 received at 361418@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>

Cc: 361418@bugs.debian.org, 0x0007@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:56:47 -0700

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:

> Actually there are two minor typos in my patch:

>               <tag>Saving</tag>
>               <item>
>                 <p>Tools for blanking the screen. Entries of screen hacks and
>                    configuration GUIs should go to other appropriate sections.
>                 </p>
>                 <p>Examples: xscreensaver, xlockmore, [fillme]</p>
>               </item>
>               <tag>Locking</tag>
>               <item>
>                 <p>Tools for locking the screen.</p>
>                 <p>Examples: xscreensaver, xlockmore, [fillme]</p>

> The [fillme] fields should probably be left out of policy.

Thanks, fixed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #413 received at 361418-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 361418-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#361418: fixed in debian-policy 3.7.3.0

Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:17:02 +0000

Source: debian-policy
Source-Version: 3.7.3.0

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
debian-policy, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

debian-policy_3.7.3.0.dsc
  to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.3.0.dsc
debian-policy_3.7.3.0.tar.gz
  to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.3.0.tar.gz
debian-policy_3.7.3.0_all.deb
  to pool/main/d/debian-policy/debian-policy_3.7.3.0_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 361418@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> (supplier of updated debian-policy package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:33:55 -0800
Source: debian-policy
Binary: debian-policy
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.7.3.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Policy List <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Description: 
 debian-policy - Debian Policy Manual and related documents
Closes: 294962 361418 363133 382612 392594 402975 412634 413575 418444 420701 424212 431813 435207 440931 448035
Changes: 
 debian-policy (3.7.3.0) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Bug fix: "FTBFS if built twice in a row"                 (Closes: #424212).
   * Bug fix: "[PROPOSAL] Document ~ behavior in version numbers", thanks
     to Nicolas François and Marc Brockschmidt                (Closes: #382612).
   * Bug fix: "Please add 'local' to list of supra-POSIX features that
     /bin/sh can be expected to offer". Also add test -a/-o binary logical
     operators and change references from POSIX to SUSv3      (Closes: #294962).
   * Bug fix: "[Proposal] new Debian menu structure", thanks to Bill
     Allombert                                                (Closes: #361418).
   * Bug fix: "typo: "must not be not world-writable"", thanks to Sam
     Hocevar                                                  (Closes: #392594).
   * Bug fix: "debian-policy: recommend binary:Version substvar instead",
     thanks to Guillem Jover                                  (Closes: #418444).
   * Bug fix: "New virtual package: dictd-dictionary", thanks to Tatsuya
     Kinoshita                                                (Closes: #413575).
   * The virtual package in use is inet-superserver, not inetd-superserver.
     Adjust the virtual package list to match.  Thanks, Tatsuya Kinoshita
     and Marco d'Itri.
   * Wrapped, cleaned up trailing whitespace, and alphabetized the list of
     virtual packages.
   * Bug fix: "Small spelling errors and erratic sentences in debian-policy",
     thanks to Michiel de Boer.                               (Closes: #435207).
   * Bug fix: "Source field of .changes files may contain a version number"
                                                              (Closes: #431813).
   * Bug fix: "822-date is deprecated (use date -R instead)"  (Closes: #448035).
   * Bug fix: "5.6.17 (Urgency) should list emergency, maybe a normative
     list?"                                                   (Closes: #412634).
   * Bug fix: "[PROPOSAL] Document support of package types in shlibs
     files", thanks to Franz Pop and Raphaël Hertzog          (Closes: #363133).
   * Bug fix: "Introduce a requirement for internationalisation of debconf
     templates", thanks to Christian Perrier                  (Closes: #402975).
   * Bug fix: "GFDL is now in common-licenses".  Also add the rest of the
     specific license versions and the GPLv3                  (Closes: #420701).
   * Bug fix: "Virtual package for Japanese font packages
     (ttf-japanese-mincho and ttf-japanese-gothic)", thanks to Nobuhiro
     Iwamatsu                                                 (Closes: #440931).
   * Drop unsupported docbook-xml format from the doc-base file for the
     debconf specification.
   * Remove inactive uploaders and add Russ Allbery.
   * Update Standards-Version to 3.7.3 (no changes required).
Files: 
 483848c51ce80749d34a6a83f07dc48e 765 doc optional debian-policy_3.7.3.0.dsc
 e8b9c137483d3441fbb8fd0e9078f475 643340 doc optional debian-policy_3.7.3.0.tar.gz
 6ada9e31cf531c7ec52e7f4fe974c924 1509794 doc optional debian-policy_3.7.3.0_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHU6kB+YXjQAr8dHYRAocMAJ97ZCJeXLMeCuKya5lLcjVWAQnX6QCeMfdt
xZO4TwfKPlY/6Ij/+XD+llo=
=OXbB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.