On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Neil Darlow <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -Dan
