[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: semi-virtual packages?



On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:04:33 -0600, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> said: 

> On Tue September 25 2007 09:22:02 am Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:36:24 -0600, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> said:
>> > On Sun September 23 2007 03:08:59 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:26:29 -0600, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca>
>> >> said:

> [I've cut a lot of duplication. If I cut something which doesn't get
> addressed below, feel free to bring it back.]

>> > The scheme I described was under the written assumption there are
>> > no such situations which would not already have a virtual package.
>> 
>> Ah.  That assumption turns out to be incorrect.

> Haha. There is nothing wrong with the assumption. That is kinda like
> saying pylint is incorrect for spitting out errors when given a
> correct perl program. You ignored a sign which would have taken you
> down a different path, and now appear to be complaining because the
> path you ended up on took you to the wrong place---neither the sign or
> paths are incorrect, you just didn't pay attention and got lost.

        Hmm? You assumed, and I quote "there are no such situations
 which would not already have a virtual package".  Since there are
 situations where there is no virtual package, it certainly seems to me
 that the assumption you made is invalid.

        If your assumption is correct, then I have missed something
 somewhere. 

>> > Why would you think any of that scheme was applicable to the case
>> > you were thinking of if it is a case in which there is no virtual
>> > package?
>> 
>> I am not sure how to answer that.  I assumed that the scheme under
>> discussion was going to be universal (or else it does not seem to be
>> much good, really -- it would still leave files around that are not
>> associated with anything).

> I don't see why it would need to be universal, "one size" stuff often
> doesn't fit anyone very well and it is not like being universal is
> pervasive and this would stand out as a wart.

        If we are not talking about a policy to be made, and you are
 only talking about an opt in scheme for some  orphan files, then
 indeed, I have nothing to add to the conversation.

        manoj
-- 
algorithm, n.: Trendy dance for hip programmers.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: