> > 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 [email protected]. 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.
