On Tue January 15 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensource@xxxxxxxxx) said:
> > > Define 'X11'. You can remove the servers just fine.
> >
> > The X11 that gives the vim-X11 package its name. To be more precise, I
> > meant with X11 every package that provides a requirement for vim-X11,
> > that vim-enhanced does not have.
>
> I just don't see what having a separate package *just* for that gains you,
> especially with the complicated lengths suggested in this thread to
> maintain it? (alternatives is never the answer...)
I do not know, whether or not seperating vim-X11 and vim-enhanced is worth it.
This is only what is currently the case. All I want to achive is that
the /usr/bin/gvim binary from vim-X11 will have symlinks with the names
{vim,vimdiff,ex,view,rview,rvim,vimtutor} in /usr/bin. So now there are three
ways to do it:
1) use Conflicts
2) use alternatives
3) use the binary from vim-X11 in vim-enhanced instead
Is there an easy way to compare the amount of packages that need to be
installed for vim-X11 but do not need to be installed for vim-enhanced?
Regards,
Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
