Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0700:
> Duncan wrote: >> I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/ >> category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property >> in the first place. > > This has been suggested elsewhere in the thread [1] but I think the the > PROPERTIES approach will be more flexible and practical for the reasons > that I've already stated. > > [1] > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ msg_65636255c9d284e51898e826cae09ffd.xml Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a dev, but I don't see the reasons you state there as a problem. I specifically addressed the java-virtuals category by suggesting that the trigger could be on "virtual" in the category, not on the single category "virtual", so java-virtuals would be included as would any other *virtual* category, and the java folks wouldn't have to move it after all. Moves as for kde/kde-meta might be an issue, but I don't believe any more so than any other package move, and since they're "virtual", possibly less so. The splits, as for qt, might be more confusing, but it's a one-time split either now or (for future packages) whenever they go virtual, at which point there's a lot of work going into them anyway. >From my perspective, that's not significant additional cost, at least compared to the cost associated with the PROPERTIES=virtual in the first place. Given the advantages, including the clarity of having the virtual property out where all can see it in the category name itself, I think it's worth the relatively small additional cost. That said, it'd be nice, and to me, worth the cost, particularly as compared to the cost of implementing a new property anyway, but since I'm not the one implementing it (in either the PM or the packages), feel free to override that opinion. There's also conceivably some times when a virtual/pkg_name might not be a proper fit regardless of the property, making the category proposal somewhat less flexible. I can't think of anywhere that such might be the case, but that doesn't mean there aren't such cases. But I still believe the benefit of having the property out there for all to see more valuable than any potentially lost flexibility. -- 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
