[Bash-completion-devel] [patch review] Add --rsyncable to gzip completion

[Santiago M. Mola]

El sáb, 17-01-2009 a las 02:47 +0200, Ville Skyttä escribió:
> On Saturday 17 January 2009, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> > revno: 1252
> > committer: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi>
> > branch nick: current
> > timestamp: Thu 2009-01-15 00:38:07 +0200
> > message:
> >   Add --rsyncable to gzip completion (not in upstream gzip (yet?), but
> > commonly patched into various distros' packages).
> >
> > We should not be adding completion non-upstream things. That patch would
> > be better in distros who have the --rsyncable option for gzip.
> > Otherwise, people using upstream version are getting wrong completion.
> 
> I'd argue the most usual source of incorrect completions are different options 
> in different upstream software releases - options etc get 
> added/removed/renamed all the time, and for many "same" commands there are 
> even different upstreams.  

David changed gzip completion to parse gzip --help, so it's fixed now.

> It's impossible to get everything right in every 
> possible scenario in a project like bash-completion, and thus I think the 
> project should focus on practical portability instead of strict "only 
> upstream" or strictly lowest common denominator policy.  In my opinion 
> adding --rsyncable to gzip was practical based on checking the Linux distros 
> I have access to or otherwise looked at their sources (Fedora, CentOS, 
> openSUSE, Mandriva, Debian; all of these had --rsyncable).

That's still a tiny subset of available distros, which is quite opposite
to "practical portability". Gentoo, for example, hasn't --rsyncable
option.

I hope in the future we take the most generic approach (when possible),
specially when talking about distro-specific options. That is, the
lowest common denominator policy or automatic guessing.

On some projects, bash-completion modules are shipped with upstream
tarballs and maintained there, so people always have the correct version
installed. I also hope we encourage this.

> --suggests, --enhances support for rpm(8): these do not exist in rpm from 
> rpm.org, but I gather do exist in rpm from rpm5.org (different upstreams with 
> differing opinions which is the "official" rpm).

As always, exceptions can be made. I can't comment on rpm case because
it's totally alien for me. If there's a quick way to check if you have
rpm from rpm.org or rpm5.org, that'd rock. Otherwise, you decide.

Regards,
-- 
Santiago Moisés Mola
Jabber: cooldwind at gmail.com | GPG: AAD203B5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada
 digitalmente
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/bash-completion-devel/attachments/20090117/82593e27/attachment.pgp