Re: [arch-general] reconfiguring vi to work like it did before the last update?

2009/7/13 Magnus Therning > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ed Jobs wrote: > > On Monday 13 July 2009 11:49, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote: > >> to the dev: > >> why not rename vi package to nvi ? > > > > +1 to that > > Sounds like a good idea, especially since nvi _isn't_ vi in the strictest > sense.

[arch-general] Are base packages assumed?

Hi there. I was wondering if base or base-devel packages should go in a package dependency list or not? What is the current policy about that? I noticed that the instructions to build a clean chroot tell to install base, base-devel and sudo, but does that means the package should be expecting them

[arch-general] File conflicts upgrading licenses

Hi there. I am having some file conflicts when upgrading the licenses package, and I don't understand why? Here is the error: resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... Targets (1): licenses-2.5-1 Total Download Size:0.00 MB Total Installed Size: 0.46 MB Proceed with install