| 1 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:39:38 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one |
| 4 |
> simply reads it literally -- it's a virtual package in that it |
| 5 |
> doesn't install anything itself, even if it's a meta-package rather |
| 6 |
> than having the meaning of the old-style virtual, that of selecting |
| 7 |
> one of many providers. So the only problem with virtual is the |
| 8 |
> narrower old meaning. Whether that's a big enough problem to worry |
| 9 |
> about is of course debatable, but I don't personally believe it is, |
| 10 |
> and find it every bit as clear and actually much less confusing than |
| 11 |
> zero-install-cost. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So what does 'virtual' actually mean then, and how is it related to the |
| 14 |
defined behaviour of this property? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives