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 1KYBWL-0006fO-Ih for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:16:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F23E7E0433; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7AE0433 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:16:32 +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 D01F565AD9 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <48B4C714.2020209@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:16:36 -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] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition) References: <48B1CC3C.2000103@gentoo.org> <20080825201217.194fecad@googlemail.com> <48B309C2.1060204@gentoo.org> <200808252103.27006.levertond@googlemail.com> <20080826142044.28367055@googlemail.com> <48B440F6.7020705@gentoo.org> <48B4B298.5030005@gentoo.org> <20080826202309.2e328a27@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20080826202309.2e328a27@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 328e3561-01da-4150-9f78-d952173f5113 X-Archives-Hash: 92dab8d8aaeb1860c46b152cec8349d3 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michal Kurgan wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to >> me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories introduces >> needless complexity without bringing any really useful benefits. > > Could you elaborate on this categories complexity? I think that the idea is to > just use already available categories, not implementing additional PROPERTY > for this functionality. > Forcing a relationship with the category name seems more complex and less flexible than simply having the ability to define PROPERTIES=virtual in any given ebuild. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAki0xxMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOI1QCgz9yfDUaAH+KnpbhrXtl5qPSn sccAn0KTXUPhw54KIBIk6soFHNNEkOHB =xQQ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----