eg at gaute.vetsj.com
Thu Sep 24 17:47:45 BST 2009
Excerpts from Ciaran McCreesh's message of to. sep. 24 18:23:32 +0200 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.
Yes. Im not saying it would be the best, but keeping things consistent
is often worth a bit of pain.
> > 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.
Yeah, it would work great for this case. But its very likely to cause
confusion and be used wrong, like the provides/replaces-hell that Arch
linux got. If it is possible to get them to be used properly it isn't a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Exherbo-dev