| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:06:35 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> So are all zero-install-cost metapackages virtuals now? What about, |
| 9 |
>>> for instance, kde-base/kde? |
| 10 |
>> Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would |
| 11 |
>> be eligible to exhibit the "virtual" property. Perhaps it wouldn't |
| 12 |
>> be very useful in this particular case, but it doesn't seem like it |
| 13 |
>> would hurt anything either. So, I think it's probably fine to keep |
| 14 |
>> the definition as it is and allow things like kde-base/kde to |
| 15 |
>> exhibit the "virtual" property. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Then change the name. Call it "zero-install-cost". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm inclined toward "virtual" since it's more brief and I think it |
| 20 |
might strike a chord with more people because of their familiarity |
| 21 |
with the "virtual" category and old-style PROVIDE virtuals. We'll |
| 22 |
have to see what others have to say. |
| 23 |
- -- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkizCcAACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO2WQCcCtL56YFoyBxNz5XUvPuJ/EMq |
| 30 |
GQsAoMLMDEk1Yd9N86SQUM1A92hntjFE |
| 31 |
=hwz3 |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives