On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:38:32 -0600 Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > If it's only used to indicate that the package doesn't install any > > files I'd suggest to use 'empty' or 'nocontents' instead. 'virtual' > > somehow implies that it's only applicable to packages in the > > 'virtual' category, which isn't the case with the given definition > > (as you said). > > I like "virtual", since it really gets at the spirit of what the > ebuild does. "empty" sounds like it does nothing at all, and > "nocontents" sounds that way to, to me.
Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild: * installs nothing * does nothing * should be treated as being very quickly installable * should be treated as having zero cost for installs The property proposed corresponds to only the last of these. > An analogy to "virtual" is a virtual method in OO programming - it > sits at a high level, does nothing in itself, but causes underlying > methods to perform the work. Virtual methods in OO can do lots. You're thinking 'pure virtual' or 'abstract'. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
