[arch-general] alternate dependencies?
neil at darlow.co.uk
Mon Apr 21 04:20:29 EDT 2008
> 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.
More information about the arch-general