| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely |
| 5 |
> > wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the |
| 6 |
> > same name, but in different categories? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with |
| 9 |
> the same name, you have the same problem. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. |
| 12 |
app-vim/ant |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's quite annoying when one needs the real ANT ( dev-java/ant ), not |
| 15 |
the vim menu plugin so vi can invoke ant or etc. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other |
| 18 |
than just ant. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Personal pet peeve of some time now, just lacked the occasion to mention |
| 21 |
it till now ;) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 26 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives