1 |
David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com> posted |
2 |
200808252103.27006.levertond@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 25 |
3 |
Aug 2008 21:03:26 +0100: |
4 |
|
5 |
> On Monday 25 August 2008 20:36:34 Zac Medico wrote: |
6 |
>> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>> >> Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would |
8 |
>> >> be eligible to exhibit the "virtual" property. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> I'm inclined toward "virtual" since it's more brief and I think it |
11 |
>> might strike a chord with more people because of their familiarity with |
12 |
>> the "virtual" category and old-style PROVIDE virtuals. We'll have to |
13 |
>> see what others have to say. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> kde-base/kde isn't like a new- or old-style virtual. If you want it to |
16 |
> be used for metapackages and things too, calling it "virtual" would be |
17 |
> confusing. |
18 |
|
19 |
Well, we could all it meta, but then we'd have the opposite problem. |
20 |
|
21 |
So what about meta-virt, or similar? |
22 |
|
23 |
But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one simply |
24 |
reads it literally -- it's a virtual package in that it doesn't install |
25 |
anything itself, even if it's a meta-package rather than having the |
26 |
meaning of the old-style virtual, that of selecting one of many |
27 |
providers. So the only problem with virtual is the narrower old |
28 |
meaning. Whether that's a big enough problem to worry about is of course |
29 |
debatable, but I don't personally believe it is, and find it every bit as |
30 |
clear and actually much less confusing than zero-install-cost. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
34 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
35 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |