21 Apr
2008
21 Apr
'08
11:47 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Neil Darlow <neil@darlow.co.uk> wrote:
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.
dcron provides cron. bash provides sh. These seem pretty generic to me.
I think there will always be a case where an alternate dependency would better be specified by the package name.
What you suggest seems like something that can always be done using the existing provisions logic, so I don't see it happening. -Dan