On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 07:16 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Pavel Roskin pÃÅ¡e v Po 06. 03. 2006 v 12:36 -0500: > >> > >> 4) git-arch should require tla or baz, not just tla. They are > >> compatible, but tla is obsolete and unmaintained, as far as I know. > > That's also not true. tla is maintained, 1.3.4 was just released and it's > also maintained in Fedora Extras. If the baz maintainer wants to add a > Provides: tla, then that might work. But otherwise, git-arch depending on > tla is absolutely fine. > *irony* This is the traditional place to create a virtual package :-) tla Provides: arch baz Provides: arch - tla is (Tom Lord's Arch) so it's just an implementation of arch. - baz does not provide tla. baz's goals are to be an arch implementation with an improved commandline ui. It shares many but not all of tla's command line options. I don't know how git uses tla but depending on the subset of commands used it's possible that git really does require tla and not baz. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
