[Bash-completion-devel] New completions: inline or separate files?
David Paleino
d.paleino at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 18:17:58 UTC 2009
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:22:45 +0100, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> El dom, 11-01-2009 a las 15:16 +0200, Ville Skyttä escribió:
> > When adding completions for new, generally available commands, is it
> > preferred to inline them in bash_completion or to add new files to contrib/?
> >
> > I gather there's a more or less active plan to split bash_completion into
> > smaller files, maybe adding new completions as separate ones would make
> > this process a bit easier?
>
> In Gentoo, we split all inline completions to a separate file named
> 'base'. I expect upstream bash-completion to follow a similar path in
> the future.
>
> In my opinion, if 'generally available commands' are really basic
> commands like the ones provided by coreutils, proc-utils, etc, I'm for
> adding them inline. Otherwise, I'd prefer them in separate files.
That's what we're doing with new completions: put them in contrib/.
Also, when fixing existing completions, I also split them in separate files in
contrib/.
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/bash-completion-devel/attachments/20090116/afc00d62/attachment.pgp
More information about the Bash-completion-devel
mailing list