-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Zac Medico wrote: > Michal Kurgan wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700 >> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-----
