Re: [arch-general] alternate dependencies?

Hi, Xavier wrote:

That's what provisions are for.

Wouln't that require that e.g. tetex and texlive have something like? provides=( "tex" ) In practice, how many packages include such a generic provides entry? From what I've seen most packages' depends rely solely on the package name. I think there will always be a case where an alternate dependency would better be specified by the package name. Regards, Neil Darlow