On Tuesday 08 May 2007, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Actually, thinking more about it, having a Requires:emacs-common is
sub-optimal, as the user who oesn't have any emacs package installed
could install the add-on, which would pull in emacs-commonm, but not
emacs or emacs-nox.
That's right, but IMHO it's the lesser evil when compared to insisting on a
particular flavour of the actual emacs binary. Mileages vary and I'm not
going to insist on that though ;), especially because:
> I will open a bugzilla RFE asking for a virtual Provides:
> though for the future, I think that's a good idea.
Thanks, added a comment there.