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 1KbbdI-00042O-2h for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:45:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1892E039B; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EE4E039B for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sheridan (dslc-082-082-176-079.pools.arcor-ip.net [82.82.176.79]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKwtQ-1KbbdG0dzz-0005c6; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:45:50 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:44:27 +0200 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) Message-Id: <20080905154427.a3c9e04b.genone@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> References: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX199IPkRvh2E/qtOSh4pqMZHjPeaWl519yfALdE tthA+hVEdrYfxTOez6MjTy1H4blOSejkSSo8HA04ryxKqIRXke YuakVxbor3Y5zzUsAe5UQ== X-Archives-Salt: 59aace95-a42c-46b5-a191-57aa20d7499a X-Archives-Hash: ac9a441f849f256ccbc57bbc799d8864 On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=virtual value seem > good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, > definition, or both? If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual' somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the 'virtual' category, which isn't the case with the given definition (as you said). Marius