On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:16:51 +0100, Santiago M. Mola wrote: > Hi all,
Hello Santiago, hello all, > Based on the current aproach on Gentoo and on comments from other > distros, I'd like to propose a new directory layout for bash-completion. Ok, let's see :-) > El lun, 12-01-2009 a las 23:55 +0100, Guillaume Rousse escribió: > > We also have a slightly initialisation system, with a file > > in /etc/profile.d sourcing a system-wide /etc/sysconfig/bash-completion > > configuration file, then a ~/.bash-completion to set up relevant > > options. This let sysadmin configure bash completion globally, or not, > > while still allowing individual users to do it in the last case. > > In Gentoo, we install all bash-completion modules > to /usr/share/bash-completion/. In Debian, we have them in /etc/bash_completion - /etc/bash_completion.d/. But, since those are not really configuration files, and are rather arch-independent data, I'd vote for those to go to /usr/share/bash-completion/. +1 for Gentoo ;-) > Modules are enabled system-wide when they're symlinked > from /etc/bash_completion.d/ and users can enable extra modules creating > symlinks in ~/.bash_completion.d/. > > We have a Gentoo-specific tool for handling these symlinks, but I guess > each distro would take its own aproach, which could be a) providing a > configuration interface, b) enabling all modules by default (like some > already do), c) let the user do it himself. I really like the idea of per-user completions, read further on my reply to Ville. However, the symlinks-in-/etc/bash_completion.d/ approach doesn't seem very robust, either. In Debian we have "alternatives", i.e. symlinks for executables (generally speaking, also for libraries) in /etc/alternatives/ pointing to /usr/bin/foo or /usr/lib/libfoo.so. Said that, I can't see how we (Debian) could sanely handle that with our "distribution-specific tool". Maybe we could also provide some distribution-agnostic tool to handle those symlinks? (something like a2ensite and a2enmod for apache2 -- but I don't really know whether those are Debian-specific) > I think installing modules to /usr/share/bash-completion is more > consistent than the current state (I don't think bash-completion modules > can be considered anything near to configuration files). Agreed. > Also, this provides more flexibility for distros and users. And it seems > it's needed since enabling/disabling modules system and user wide is a > quite common demanded feature. Agreed. > With respect backwards compatibility, there's not too much to say: if > someone installs a module directly to /etc/bash_completion.d, it'll > obviously work. ACK. 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
