[Bash-completion-devel] [bash-completion-Bugs][312089] Request: bash-completion version envvar

bash-completion-bugs at alioth.debian.org bash-completion-bugs at alioth.debian.org
Sun Nov 27 15:08:11 UTC 2011


Bugs item #312089, was changed at 2009-11-18 08:33 by Igor Murzov
You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=413095&aid=312089&group_id=100114

Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Sung Pae (guns-guest)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Request: bash-completion version envvar 
Distribution: None
Originally reported in: None
Milestone: None
Status: None
Original bug number: 


Initial Comment:
Hello,

Since the bash-completion project provides a good deal of core functionality, it would be nice as a third party completions author to have the bash-completion version in an environment variable (perhaps BASH_COMPLETION_VERSION or BASH_COMPLETION_RELEASE).

Are there any plans on providing this, or arguments against it?

Cheers,
Sung Pae

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Igor Murzov (garik-guest)
Date: 2011-11-27 19:08

Message:
bash-completion now uses pkg-config, and one can get bash-completion version with `pkg-config --modversion bash-completion`. I think, that solves the problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ville Skyttä  (scop-guest)
Date: 2009-11-21 00:25

Message:
Despite the small overhead, I still think testing for functions is a superior approach than testing version numbers.  Distros patch the bash completion they ship etc etc.  But I won't object if someone wants to add a version number.

Regarding bash completion "API" stability, I think it's likely that just about everything will be renamed in 2.0 (see roadmap in Wiki).  But I also hope this will be the last time something like that happens and that we pay more attention to API stability from there on and will try hard not to break it any more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Sung Pae (guns-guest)
Date: 2009-11-20 02:03

Message:
Testing for extant functions is fine, but the current functionality and content
of certain existing functions and variables have already diverged from Ian
Macdonald's version, and even from the initial release of this project's 1.0.

I suspect with the ambitious goals of 2.0 this is only going to continue.
Testing functionality and content is more complicated than testing a version
string, and would take unnecessary cpu cycles. It would be more convenient at
that point to embed similar functions into my third-party files, rather than
having a dependency on this project.

I am hoping to greatly increase the number of completions available for commands that are not appropriate for distribution with this project, and would like to have a good way to leverage `bash-completion', instead of having to duplicate or embed it.

Cheers,
Sung Pae

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Ville Skyttä  (scop-guest)
Date: 2009-11-20 00:09

Message:
I'd personally rather recommend 3rd party completion authors to test presence of actual functionality (existence of functions they're about to use, for instance) instead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=413095&aid=312089&group_id=100114



More information about the Bash-completion-devel mailing list