[arch-general] alternate dependencies?

Neil Darlow neil at darlow.co.uk
Mon Apr 21 04:20:29 EDT 2008


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.

Neil Darlow

More information about the arch-general mailing list