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 1KXhrf-0001we-0Z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:36:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C229E03C4; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EC3E03C4 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECEE65047 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <48B309C2.1060204@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:36:34 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) References: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> <20080825194019.2b593fbf@googlemail.com> <48B302BB.3050307@gentoo.org> <20080825201217.194fecad@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080825201217.194fecad@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6c2611ff-649a-4cc4-9ad5-e87ed518cb28 X-Archives-Hash: 0e23e6ad27e0f8cc7cb7915c35cf54fe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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? >> 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". I'm inclined toward "virtual" since it's more brief and I think it might strike a chord with more people because of their familiarity with the "virtual" category and old-style PROVIDE virtuals. We'll have to see what others have to say. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkizCcAACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO2WQCcCtL56YFoyBxNz5XUvPuJ/EMq GQsAoMLMDEk1Yd9N86SQUM1A92hntjFE =hwz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----