On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:48 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do the name and definition of this PROPERTIES=virtual value seem > good? Would anybody like to discuss any changes to the name, > definition, or both? 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). Marius
