Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#45406 - [vim] should packages providing xxd be marked as such?
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Corentin Delcourt (codl) - Sunday, 21 June 2015, 16:18 GMT
Last edited by Anatol Pomozov (anatolik) - Monday, 04 January 2016, 20:39 GMT
Opened by Corentin Delcourt (codl) - Sunday, 21 June 2015, 16:18 GMT
Last edited by Anatol Pomozov (anatolik) - Monday, 04 January 2016, 20:39 GMT
|
Detailsvim, gvim, and their python3 counterparts all provide /bin/xxd. An AUR package that I maintain relies on xxd for building, and it seems wrong to put vim in makedepends, considering vim is a huge text editor, xxd is a small utility, and xxd is also available as a standalone package on the AUR. The xxd package on the AUR conflicts with vim and gvim, unfortunately.
Shouldn't vim and its variants have provides=('xxd')? This way I could put xxd in my package's makedepends and a user wanting to build it would not have to install vim if they don't have it, they could build xxd from the AUR. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Anatol Pomozov (anatolik)
Monday, 04 January 2016, 20:39 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Monday, 04 January 2016, 20:39 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
As of moving xxd to vim-runtime I have no strong opinion. vim-runtime package is for shared syntax/plugin files, not for binaries.