| 1 |
On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:38:32 -0600 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 4 |
> > If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any |
| 5 |
> > files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual' |
| 6 |
> > somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the |
| 7 |
> > 'virtual' category, which isn't the case with the given definition |
| 8 |
> > (as you said). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I like "virtual", since it really gets at the spirit of what the |
| 11 |
> ebuild does. "empty" sounds like it does nothing at all, and |
| 12 |
> "nocontents" sounds that way to, to me. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* installs nothing |
| 17 |
* does nothing |
| 18 |
* should be treated as being very quickly installable |
| 19 |
* should be treated as having zero cost for installs |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The property proposed corresponds to only the last of these. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> An analogy to "virtual" is a virtual method in OO programming - it |
| 24 |
> sits at a high level, does nothing in itself, but causes underlying |
| 25 |
> methods to perform the work. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Virtual methods in OO can do lots. You're thinking 'pure virtual' or |
| 28 |
'abstract'. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives