Yes. good idea. I think this makes sense.Lets at least come up with a sane name. Even though dependencies are not supposed to be human redable, i dont think it is not wise to make it appear that it is in fact providing a file that doesnt exist.
Suggestions (i have no idea about any other limitations) libdb-3.3.so-devel libdb-3.3.so(devel) etc...
I don't mind using "(" ")", but it makes it less usable when querying from the commandline:
$ urpmq libdb-3.3.so(devel) bash: syntax error near unexpected token `(
so you'll need to do it like this:
$ urpmq "libdb-3.3.so(devel)" no package named libdb-3.3.so(devel)
Shall we make it "libdb-3.3.so-devel"? Any objections?
regards,
Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature