1 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 48B440F6.7020705@g.o, |
2 |
excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0700: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Duncan wrote: |
5 |
>> I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/ |
6 |
>> category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property |
7 |
>> in the first place. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This has been suggested elsewhere in the thread [1] but I think the the |
10 |
> PROPERTIES approach will be more flexible and practical for the reasons |
11 |
> that I've already stated. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> [1] |
14 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ |
15 |
msg_65636255c9d284e51898e826cae09ffd.xml |
16 |
|
17 |
Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a dev, but I don't see the reasons you |
18 |
state there as a problem. I specifically addressed the java-virtuals |
19 |
category by suggesting that the trigger could be on "virtual" in the |
20 |
category, not on the single category "virtual", so java-virtuals would be |
21 |
included as would any other *virtual* category, and the java folks |
22 |
wouldn't have to move it after all. |
23 |
|
24 |
Moves as for kde/kde-meta might be an issue, but I don't believe any more |
25 |
so than any other package move, and since they're "virtual", possibly |
26 |
less so. The splits, as for qt, might be more confusing, but it's a |
27 |
one-time split either now or (for future packages) whenever they go |
28 |
virtual, at which point there's a lot of work going into them anyway. |
29 |
|
30 |
From my perspective, that's not significant additional cost, at least |
31 |
compared to the cost associated with the PROPERTIES=virtual in the first |
32 |
place. Given the advantages, including the clarity of having the virtual |
33 |
property out where all can see it in the category name itself, I think |
34 |
it's worth the relatively small additional cost. |
35 |
|
36 |
That said, it'd be nice, and to me, worth the cost, particularly as |
37 |
compared to the cost of implementing a new property anyway, but since I'm |
38 |
not the one implementing it (in either the PM or the packages), feel free |
39 |
to override that opinion. |
40 |
|
41 |
There's also conceivably some times when a virtual/pkg_name might not be |
42 |
a proper fit regardless of the property, making the category proposal |
43 |
somewhat less flexible. I can't think of anywhere that such might be the |
44 |
case, but that doesn't mean there aren't such cases. But I still believe |
45 |
the benefit of having the property out there for all to see more valuable |
46 |
than any potentially lost flexibility. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
50 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
51 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |