1 |
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=virtual value seem |
5 |
> good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, |
6 |
> definition, or both? |
7 |
|
8 |
If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any |
9 |
files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual' |
10 |
somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the 'virtual' |
11 |
category, which isn't the case with the given definition (as you said). |
12 |
|
13 |
Marius |