[arch-general] alternate dependencies?

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 07:47:55 EDT 2008

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Neil Darlow <neil at 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.


More information about the arch-general mailing list