On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:28:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.We could rename vim to vim-basic and then have all of the variants Provide: vim. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
