On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Bächler <tho...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Yes, that shouldn't be. It's broken the way it is - either the group > should be renamed, or the provides should be removed. > It's not the first time something similar happen. I think of some packages that have been split and put within a group sharing one of the package name. Maybe the way pacman handle groups must be changed to let user have choice, even if group, package or provides are the same. -- Cédric Girard
