* Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-18 01:14]: > In this case I was calling "db_driver" a virtual package > because it represents a requirement, but is not an actual > module; It represents a requirement that may be satisfied by > any of the two modules listed. It serves the same basic purpose > as Debian's as in Debians system, but it is implemented > differently in that it is defined on a per package basis.
Yes, that proposal made sense, except for the name. :-) I have actually been arguing in favour of it, if you look at my mails. Can we use something other than "virtual package" please? Maybe "deferred depence"? Actually I don't know that this is a good name, it's just the best the comes to mind, and anything we can agree on that differs from "virtual package" would be fine, really. Let's just avoid further confusion and heartburn. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
