[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-09-09 Thread Steve Long
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-08-31 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:29:16 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that that's not what it's being used to mean. It's being used to mean the cost of selecting this when doing dependency resolution cost analysis is zero, which is an entirely different thing. So it's

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=virtual for meta-packages (clarification of definition)

2008-08-30 Thread Steve Long
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 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