1 |
On Monday 25 August 2008 20:36:34 Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> >> Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would |
4 |
> >> be eligible to exhibit the "virtual" property. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I'm inclined toward "virtual" since it's more brief and I think it |
7 |
> might strike a chord with more people because of their familiarity |
8 |
> with the "virtual" category and old-style PROVIDE virtuals. We'll |
9 |
> have to see what others have to say. |
10 |
|
11 |
kde-base/kde isn't like a new- or old-style virtual. If you want it to be |
12 |
used for metapackages and things too, calling it "virtual" would be |
13 |
confusing. |