| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> Michal Kurgan wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700 |
| 7 |
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>>> The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to |
| 10 |
>>> me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories introduces |
| 11 |
>>> needless complexity without bringing any really useful benefits. |
| 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 |
Let me explain a bit more in case it's not clear. By forcing a |
| 22 |
relationship between the category and some other property, and |
| 23 |
removing the flexibility that would exist had this relationship not |
| 24 |
been forced, you end up having to add the additional complexity of |
| 25 |
package splits in order to achieve what could have otherwise been |
| 26 |
accomplished without any package splits. |
| 27 |
- -- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iEYEARECAAYFAki01awACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMy6wCg3VMSZr4KyARF2RNyC5OSwxky |
| 34 |
yvEAn2lR8XOmBBqWC23sl4BZMST/VNcI |
| 35 |
=7oU2 |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives