[arch-general] alternate dependencies?
shiningxc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 05:28:54 EDT 2008
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Neil Darlow <neil at darlow.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
You can use a virtual tex provision, but you don't need to.
Since the packages probably already depend on "tetex", you only need
to have texlive provide tetex and that's it. Maybe it even already
More information about the arch-general