[Fedora-packaging] Should vim-X11 conflict with vim-enhanced ?

Till Maas opensource at till.name
Tue Jan 15 21:14:42 UTC 2008

On Tue January 15 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensource at till.name) 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?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080115/4851488c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list