Hi, Axel. Thanks for the review and explanations. :)
On 02 Oct 2017, Axel Beckert wrote: > >sorry for the late reply. Replying to your original mail as I already >had written half the mail a few days ago. Thank you! I only sent a new email because I have found some answers and because I have progressed with the packaging to a point where it might make sense to share it (through mentors). >This is a very common issue with bash-completion and zsh-common (where >zsh's default completions live), but it's also unique to those two >packages. > >Background: Some projects maintain shell completions rather well, >others don't, but the team maintaining the completions does maintain >them. If new completions are added to bash-completions, it's often a >sign that the project they're for, doesn't really maintain them. OK. >So you should compare the conflicting files: Which are more uptodate, >which have more precise completion. > >If it's the one in the project's package, just don't ship the one in >bash-completion and it's good. Makes sense. >If the newly appeared file in bash-completion is clearly the better, >you should maybe not ship it now, but file a bug report against the >other package to exclude it, and if that's done, add in your next >upload Breaks + Replaces headers against the last version of the >package which still contained the conflicting file. Makes sense. In the packaging I already did, I removed the conflicting files. Based on your comment, I'll analyze which of them is better, than if it's bash-completion's, I'll file a bug report agains the other package.