| 1 |
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:29:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Except that that's not what it's being used to mean. It's being |
| 4 |
> > used to mean "the cost of selecting this when doing dependency |
| 5 |
> > resolution cost analysis is zero", which is an entirely different |
| 6 |
> > thing. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> So it's zero-resolution-cost now? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, the overall cost in resolution is potentially non-zero. But the |
| 11 |
cost of selecting it for an install when resolving it is zero. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Yes, that *is* different (although |
| 14 |
> I'd use free-resolve. "free" is well understood as often meaning |
| 15 |
> "zero-cost," which isn't a phrase most English-speaking people use. |
| 16 |
> It only has meaning within the PROPERTIES variable, so it's not going |
| 17 |
> to clash with anything.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
free means lots of things. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > Users don't need to see it. Heck, most developers don't need to see |
| 22 |
> > it. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> Well any dev using it will do, and I believe most of them start out as |
| 25 |
> users. Anyone reading the ebuild will see it, and the fact that it's a |
| 26 |
> well-understood term, within Gentoo at least[2], makes it easier for |
| 27 |
> the PM user-base to work with. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
virtual is a well-understood term that does not mean what the property |
| 30 |
being discussed will mean. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> It's a cultural "people understand this already" point as opposed to a |
| 33 |
> technical make-it-as-explicit-as-we-can one. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
And with this 'understanding' comes lots of misconceptions about what |
| 36 |
it means. 'virtual' implies lots of things that this property does not. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives