On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > > Igor Pechtchanski writes: > > > > > Well, you could require both (the new XFree86-base is a dummy package, > > > > Ok, that sounds like an acceptable option. I've fixed the xorg name > > and added XFree86-base. > > > > > P.S. Does it really require xorg-x11-base, or xorg-x11-bin-dlls? > > > > I just mimicked ghostscript-x11. xorg-x11-bin-dlls will satisfy > > cygcheck, but I guess people who install tetex-x11 want to say xdvi, > > so that should just work. > > > > Jan. > > Hmm, in this particular case it might be a valid choice (you can't run > tetex-x11 without X, can you?). Some other packages (notably xemacs) > contain way too many dependencies, more than are needed for normal > operation. > > Note, though, that they would still need to *run* X before xdvi will work. > 0:-) > Igor
Oh, and what about people who use other X servers (like Exceed), or even expect to run xdvi remotely via ssh from a Linux machine? Granted, the latter group is probably small enough and knowledgeable enough to be able to deal with the automatic X dependency... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw