| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700 |
| 4 |
>> Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 7 |
>>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> Hello, |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore, |
| 11 |
>>>> I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain |
| 12 |
>>>> category nowadays. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, |
| 15 |
>>>> maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm |
| 16 |
>>>> proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories. |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed with 'perl-'. |
| 19 |
>>>> Maybe they could be transformed into 'perl-virtual/*'? |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> why? |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Because I like categories much more than I do prefixes. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> But right now all virtuals are easily recognizable and nicely grouped |
| 27 |
> into one category. From my point of view that's the best categorization |
| 28 |
> we could ask for ... what would we gain from changing it? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Nothing IMO. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
+1 to keep virtuals as they are now. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rafael Goncalves Martins |
| 39 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 40 |
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/ |
Archives