| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Michal Kurgan wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to |
| 9 |
>> me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories introduces |
| 10 |
>> needless complexity without bringing any really useful benefits. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Could you elaborate on this categories complexity? I think that the idea is to |
| 13 |
> just use already available categories, not implementing additional PROPERTY |
| 14 |
> for this functionality. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Forcing a relationship with the category name seems more complex and |
| 18 |
less flexible than simply having the ability to define |
| 19 |
PROPERTIES=virtual in any given ebuild. |
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
iEYEARECAAYFAki0xxMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOI1QCgz9yfDUaAH+KnpbhrXtl5qPSn |
| 27 |
sccAn0KTXUPhw54KIBIk6soFHNNEkOHB |
| 28 |
=xQQ5 |
| 29 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives