David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:03:26 +0100:
> On Monday 25 August 2008 20:36:34 Zac Medico wrote: >> > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would >> >> be eligible to exhibit the "virtual" property. >> >> 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. > > kde-base/kde isn't like a new- or old-style virtual. If you want it to > be used for metapackages and things too, calling it "virtual" would be > confusing. Well, we could all it meta, but then we'd have the opposite problem. So what about meta-virt, or similar? But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one simply reads it literally -- it's a virtual package in that it doesn't install anything itself, even if it's a meta-package rather than having the meaning of the old-style virtual, that of selecting one of many providers. So the only problem with virtual is the narrower old meaning. Whether that's a big enough problem to worry about is of course debatable, but I don't personally believe it is, and find it every bit as clear and actually much less confusing than zero-install-cost. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
