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
Task Type General Gripe
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Anatol Pomozov (anatolik)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No


vim, 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
Comment by Daniel Micay (thestinger) - Sunday, 21 June 2015, 16:37 GMT
Side note: xxd should probably be in the common vim-runtime as it is in distributions like Fedora since there's no difference based on the configuration options varying between the packages.
Comment by Anatol Pomozov (anatolik) - Monday, 29 June 2015, 17:07 GMT
+1 for provides=('xxd')

As of moving xxd to vim-runtime I have no strong opinion. vim-runtime package is for shared syntax/plugin files, not for binaries.
Comment by Anatol Pomozov (anatolik) - Monday, 29 June 2015, 17:31 GMT
Just pushed 7.4.764 that provides 'xxd' to [testing]. Daniel, if you feel that vim/xxd binaries should be reorganized please file a separate ticket so we can keep discussing it there.