Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Zac Medico wrote:
> Michal Kurgan wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> 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.

Let me explain a bit more in case it's not clear. By forcing a
relationship between the category and some other property, and
removing the flexibility that would exist had this relationship not
been forced, you end up having to add the additional complexity of
package splits in order to achieve what could have otherwise been
accomplished without any package splits.
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAki01awACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMy6wCg3VMSZr4KyARF2RNyC5OSwxky
yvEAn2lR8XOmBBqWC23sl4BZMST/VNcI
=7oU2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----