Joe Peterson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Except it doesn't. A virtual ebuild:
* installs nothing
* does nothing
I'd say that virtual does indeed do something: it pulls in other packages.
* should be treated as being very quickly installable
* should be treated as having zero cost
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:40:37 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* should be treated as being very quickly installable
* should be treated as having zero cost for installs
Both of which follow from installs nothing. Or would you disagree?
No, they're separate properties, with
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:20:07 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property
in the first place.
I strongly belive that it's a horrible idea to add special
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Users don't need to see it.
I cannot quite agree on that point. Given that Gentoo is a distro that
appeals to the more technically-oriented users, I personally believe
that what we expose as ebuild syntax is actually exposed to many users
fairly profoundly.
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:10:58 -0600:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Users don't need to see it.
I cannot quite agree on that point. Given that Gentoo is a distro that
appeals to the more technically-oriented users, I
Duncan wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug
2008 14:20:44 +0100:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:39:38 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one
simply reads it
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:59:41 +0100
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I concur that it makes a lot of sense, fitting in exactly with the
meaning originally given. That it means 'zero-install-cost' is
neither here nor there imo; 'virtual' is a well understood terms for
the same thing: an
David Leverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 25
Aug 2008 21:03:26 +0100:
On Monday 25 August 2008 20:36:34 Zac Medico wrote:
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at the dependencies of kde-base/kde, it seems like it would
be eligible to
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:39:38 + (UTC)
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one
simply reads it literally -- it's a virtual package in that it
doesn't install anything itself, even if it's a meta-package rather
than having the meaning
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug
2008 14:20:44 +0100:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:39:38 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I think virtual works just fine for kde-base/kde, too, if one
simply reads it literally -- it's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/ category
better, thus obviating the need for that particular property in the first
place.
This has been suggested elsewhere in the thread [1] but I think the
the
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0700:
Duncan wrote:
I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
category better, thus obviating the need for that particular property
in the first place.
This has been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan wrote:
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:44:22 -0700:
Duncan wrote:
I therefore believe I like just moving them all to a *virtual*/
category better, thus obviating the need
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to
me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories introduces
needless complexity without bringing any really useful benefits.
Could you elaborate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michal Kurgan wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to
me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories introduces
needless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan and others wrote:
|
| Moves as for kde/kde-meta might be an issue,
You can leave kde meta packages out of this discussion as our plan is to
move to sets. We're going to have sets for 4.1* and plan to completely
drop meta packages for 4.2.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zac Medico wrote:
Michal Kurgan wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:49:12 -0700
Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PROPERTIES approach still seems a lot simpler and practical to
me. It seems to me that the approach involving categories
17 matches
Mail list logo
