Whoops, I intended that last reply to go to the list. Just shows that you should check your headers even when you're writing a quick note. :)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 01:59:19PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Chris Waters wrote: > > Yes, and those virtual packages with no associated interface tend to > > be less useful. I completely agree. I still think it's a bit much to > > throw them out, just because they're not _as_ useful as the rest of > > the virtual packages. > I never said we should thrown them out.. Not directly, no, but you said that "A virtual package is a means to indicate a package provides a certain interface, not some functionality. Functionality is useless if you can't use it in a standard way." If the merely-functional virtual packages were actually useless (which is essentially what you said), then I think we would be justified in throwing them out. But I don't think they are, so I don't think we are. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
