Mk/bsd.port.mk: Added chemistry and physics virtual categories (for search purposes)

[yuri]

Summary

Added chemistry and physics virtual categories

[tcberner]

Looks sensible to me. But you need the approval of portmgr for this.

[adamw]

I think it's pretty fair to identify chemistry and physics stuff, given that we already do so for biology. However, empty categories are not useful----new categories must arrive fully-populated. What is the comprehensive list of ports you would assign to these categories?

[yuri]

The partial list of ports for these categories:

Physics:
science/ALPSCore
science/p5-Physics-*
science/fisicalab
science/step
science/psychopy
science/clhep

Chemistry:
science/CheMPS2
science/libefp
science/p5-Chemistry-*
science/gchemutils
science/ghemical
science/bodr
science/mol2ps
science/openbabel
science/py-pyscf

Should I just add the category to those ports too in the same commit?

[tcberner]

In D13481#281839, @yuri wrote:

The partial list of ports for these categories:

Physics:
science/ALPSCore
science/p5-Physics-*
science/fisicalab
science/step
science/psychopy
science/clhep

Chemistry:
science/CheMPS2
science/libefp
science/p5-Chemistry-*
science/gchemutils
science/ghemical
science/bodr
science/mol2ps
science/openbabel
science/py-pyscf

Should I just add the category to those ports too in the same commit?

There is also science/kalzium for chemistry. Yes please update the review with said ports included.

[yuri]

Added categories to relevant ports.

[mat]

I don't recall seeing a discussion about this on ports@.

[yuri]

In D13481#281919, @mat wrote:

I don't recall seeing a discussion about this on ports@.

@mat So, it has been a discussion on ports@.
Can I commit it now?

[mat]

In D13481#282268, @yuri wrote:

In D13481#281919, @mat wrote:

I don't recall seeing a discussion about this on ports@.

@mat So, it has been a discussion on ports@.
Can I commit it now?

Absolutely not. There has not been a discussion. You sent one email, there was one answer saying "nope", and one saying "meh". That is not a discussion.

See 5.3.4. Proposing a New Category.

So, what is going to happen is we wait at least, say, 30 days, see what comes of it, and if many other people like the idea, we'll look into this a bit more.

[yuri]

I suggest these categories should be approved because there are dozens of ports that qualify to be in each of them, and the number is only going to grow.

[adamw]

The full, comprehensive list of ports for each category needs to be included here. From experience, we can't create a category and hope that others put stuff in there---it never happens, and then we have stale categories. In order for this to proceed, Yuri, you'd have to do the legwork on identifying the comprehensive list here. Is this list of 36 ports the full list?

[yuri]

@adamw The list is included above. About 10-15 more ports can be added to it.

[adamw]

In D13481#349997, @yuri wrote:

About 10-15 more ports can be added to it.

Then please add them, Yuri. As I said, the full list needs to be included here.

[yuri]

List of ports in the proposed checmistry category:

devel/py-qutip
science/abinit
science/antioch
science/atompaw
science/bodr
science/chemps2
science/chemtool
science/coot
science/gchemutils
science/ghemical
science/kalzium
science/kalzium-kde4
science/libefp
science/libghemical
science/libssm
science/mbdyn
science/mmdb2
science/mol2ps
science/mpqc
science/mpqc-mpich
science/openbabel
science/openstructure
science/p5-Chemistry-3DBuilder
science/p5-Chemistry-Bond-Find
science/p5-Chemistry-Canonicalize
science/p5-Chemistry-Elements
science/p5-Chemistry-File-MDLMol
science/p5-Chemistry-File-Mopac
science/p5-Chemistry-File-PDB
science/p5-Chemistry-File-SLN
science/p5-Chemistry-File-SMARTS
science/p5-Chemistry-File-SMILES
science/p5-Chemistry-File-VRML
science/p5-Chemistry-File-XYZ
science/p5-Chemistry-FormulaPattern
science/p5-Chemistry-InternalCoords
science/p5-Chemistry-Isotope
science/p5-Chemistry-MacroMol
science/p5-Chemistry-MidasPattern
science/p5-Chemistry-Mok
science/p5-Chemistry-Mol
science/p5-Chemistry-Pattern
science/p5-Chemistry-Reaction
science/p5-Chemistry-Ring
science/pcmsolver
science/py-PyQuante
science/py-abipy
science/py-pyscf
science/quantum-espresso
science/rdkit
science/xcrysden

List of ports in the proposed physics category:

astro/accrete
devel/ChipmunkPhysics
devel/py-IBMQuantumExperience
devel/py-Pint
devel/py-bullet3
devel/tokamak
math/cadabra2
science/ALPSCore
science/MOOSE-neural-simulator
science/abinit
science/atompaw
science/clhep
science/coolfluid3
science/fisicalab
science/metaphysicl
science/p5-Physics-Unit
science/py-MDAnalysis
science/py-MDAnalysisTests
science/py-OpenFermion
science/py-abipy
science/quantum-espresso
science/step
science/step-kde4
science/udunits
science/xcrysden

[mat]

Could you also give a pointer to the discussion where a consensus was reached that these categories are needed?

[tcberner]

I don't think the list is complete, you're missing for example science/kalzium-kde4.

[yuri]

In D13481#350313, @tcberner wrote:

I don't think the list is complete, you're missing for example science/kalzium-kde4.

Thanks for noticing! I added it.

[yuri]

In D13481#350299, @mat wrote:

Could you also give a pointer to the discussion where a consensus was reached that these categories are needed?

Sorry, forgot to include the URL with discussion: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2018-July/113933.html
Five yeses there sound like a consensus.

[mat]

In D13481#350632, @yuri wrote:

In D13481#350299, @mat wrote:

Could you also give a pointer to the discussion where a consensus was reached that these categories are needed?

Sorry, forgot to include the URL with discussion: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2018-July/113933.html
Five yeses there sound like a consensus.

Mmmm, so, looking at the dates, you started that discussion about an hour after I asked where the discussion with the consensus to create those virtual categories was.

So, I am unsure how you could have "forgotten to include" a discussion that did not exist.

There are ways of doing things in the ports tree. In this instance, the last message I sent last December when you first tried this contained a link to 5.3.4. Proposing a New Category, which says that before you start working on this patch, you must first start a discussion, seeing if there is a need for it or not.

In the future, please abide by our rules, it is tiring to always have to remind you of this.