On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Neil Darlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 generi
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Neil Darlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 sole
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.
I t
Neil Darlow wrote:
Hi,
Seeing the earlier post re. tetex and texlive perhaps there is a case
for extending pacman to support alternate dependencies.
By this I mean a package could depend on one of a choice of packages.
The syntax could be something like:
depends=( tetex|texlive )
where th
Hi,
Seeing the earlier post re. tetex and texlive perhaps there is a case
for extending pacman to support alternate dependencies.
By this I mean a package could depend on one of a choice of packages.
The syntax could be something like:
depends=( tetex|texlive )
where the individual depende
5 matches
Mail list logo
