On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:15:38 +0200 Gaute Hope <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't this just a special case of virtuals? why not try to solve both > at one time, to keep consistency. It basically boils down to a package > or user needing a feature that is provided by two or more packages.
It doesn't map nicely onto the virtuals model. Also, we hate virtuals. > The effect is that both CONTAINS and CONTAINED_IN lack a central place > to relate. And adding another package that provides the feature > means updating all the CONTAINS and CONTAINED_IN packages. It's not a "provides the feature" model. If it's a "provides the feature" model, contains isn't suitable. It's a way of handling the specific, reasonably common case where an external library is shipped as part of a package, but that can also be shipped independently. > Which package is to be the CONTAINS package and which is the > CONTAINED_IN one(s) ? The relationship is obvious. If the relationship isn't obvious, it's not a suitable use of CONTAINS. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
