> > I greatly favor anything else over making Package non-isomorphic. > > I completely appreciate what you're saying. However, I don't think this was the intent of the provider abstraction. It was intended to make the OS-specific provider transparent, right? The different types of packages we're talking about really don't fit that model. To have a package and secondary_package type seems more confusing than it should be, where the solution proposed by Daniele and Andy seems straightforward IMO.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/0521beec-dcd7-4cf0-bc91-7ed59f0ce7a8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
