Excerpts from Ciaran McCreesh's message of to. sep. 24 18:23:32 +0200 2009: > 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.
Yes. Im not saying it would be the best, but keeping things consistent is often worth a bit of pain. > > 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. Yeah, it would work great for this case. But its very likely to cause confusion and be used wrong, like the provides/replaces-hell that Arch linux got. If it is possible to get them to be used properly it isn't a problem. - gaute
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
