ciaran.mccreesh at googlemail.com
Thu Sep 24 17:23:32 BST 2009
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:15:38 +0200
Gaute Hope <eg at gaute.vetsj.com> wrote:
> Isn't this just a special case of virtuals? why not try to solve both
> at one time, to keep consistency. It basically boils down to a package
> or user needing a feature that is provided by two or more packages.
It doesn't map nicely onto the virtuals model.
Also, we hate virtuals.
> The effect is that both CONTAINS and CONTAINED_IN lack a central place
> to relate. And adding another package that provides the feature
> means updating all the CONTAINS and CONTAINED_IN packages.
It's not a "provides the feature" model. If it's a "provides the
feature" model, contains isn't suitable. It's a way of handling the
specific, reasonably common case where an external library is shipped as
part of a package, but that can also be shipped independently.
> Which package is to be the CONTAINS package and which is the
> CONTAINED_IN one(s) ?
The relationship is obvious. If the relationship isn't obvious, it's
not a suitable use of CONTAINS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Exherbo-dev