From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KXhUL-0007S8-Dq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:12:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C9B0E03B2; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635EAE03B2 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:12:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o4so570071uge.39 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:12:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=Hewqs/8HWnFVZFjx+tur0pAOXZqjqu0FEVwtjOdmCf8=; b=tKVsXRpCTV0hM2ql6kpiVWXb5e1G0pW6N+6b8YvWXAVDHvJlSFyWxquQ8U9u3Zm4dI c8RWuoVLrHjG6/krW/rN/j2PPihPA4Iwagpc98RfKNw0BIhnjBM5PJrfO2JXa2PA3Ki7 WkneCE2p750ZLVFuwctC6COVZkIU4RWVolBOY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=YaEKq+tpy3WlZUAHG9NA4Sl4FnHO2+AhEFU2AKqpeq1MmizpwykhNFQZ40FDi4jcSi mazaQdGmQnf6lneus/3CUXMuhDu3CUvonn7wO9lpAo3zn+An/Q4pIOv9vaiq6YB49DlN ng53ax+IUItga5Z2APhZdQw/q+VfonoMnYgiI= Received: by 10.67.32.18 with SMTP id k18mr2714164ugj.26.1219691546840; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ( [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm12359439ugp.14.2008.08.25.12.12.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:12:17 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) Message-ID: <20080825201217.194fecad@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <48B302BB.3050307@gentoo.org> References: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> <20080825194019.2b593fbf@googlemail.com> <48B302BB.3050307@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/hD_zkYsg+9ZteJrqVvO/XX5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: d594fe1a-683b-4bed-bfe6-b7105fbbbe05 X-Archives-Hash: 47dc8f61c43d835c3feee77244188b02 --Sig_/hD_zkYsg+9ZteJrqVvO/XX5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:06:35 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > So are all zero-install-cost metapackages virtuals now? What about, > > for instance, kde-base/kde? >=20 > Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would > be eligible to exhibit the "virtual" property. Perhaps it wouldn't > be very useful in this particular case, but it doesn't seem like it > would hurt anything either. So, I think it's probably fine to keep > the definition as it is and allow things like kde-base/kde to > exhibit the "virtual" property. Then change the name. Call it "zero-install-cost". --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/hD_zkYsg+9ZteJrqVvO/XX5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkizBBQACgkQ96zL6DUtXhH88QCfSDUwBiUgGjiiQeq8es2ALmNU OM0AnRvL12tbIujwuxT56DsHetW/hJry =GvQW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/hD_zkYsg+9ZteJrqVvO/XX5--