On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 12:24:50PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Packages like vim-nox should really provide 'vim', shouldn't they? If > you install vim-nox, you don't want 'vim' around, yet some packages, > like vim-vimoutliner and vim-latexsuite depend on vim|gvim. vim-gtk > provides gvim, so vim-nox should provide vim.
Uhm, fact is: "gvim" is not also a real binary package, but only a
virtual one. On the contrary "vim" is a real binary package, what would
happen to {autobuilders, apt-get, aptitude, ...} in the weird case that
a provided package is also a real one?
I've observed the issue you mention in the past, but so far I've
refrained to fix it for the above reason.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
