Re: X support, and other alternate configurations

2001-01-14 Thread Gustavo Noronha Silva \(KoV\)
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:01:48AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Does this mean that packages can't provide versions of their binaries > without X support? Or does it just mean that those binaries have to go > into a package with other binaries configured for X support? I'm very interested on th

Re: X support, and other alternate configurations

2001-01-14 Thread Colin Watson
Gordon Sadler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:01:48AM +, Colin Watson wrote: >> Is the intent really to forbid multiple front ends to programs like >> gnutalk from being split into separate packages? > >I'm no expert, but check the vim package collection by Wichert >Akker

Re: X support, and other alternate configurations

2001-01-14 Thread Gordon Sadler
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:01:48AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > 5.8 Programs for the X Window System > > Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window System > must be configured to do so and must declare any package dependencies > necessary to satisfy their runtime requir

X support, and other alternate configurations

2001-01-14 Thread Colin Watson
5.8 Programs for the X Window System Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window System must be configured to do so and must declare any package dependencies necessary to satisfy their runtime requirements when using the X Window System, unless the package in question