On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 9:20 PM Kevin Locke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 08:55 +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> What problem does this cause? Or what benefits does it cause to use > >> the correct package? I don't really want to complicate the packaging. > > > > Anyway, here's another reason: it's possible to install pulseaudio-utils > > without installing pulseaudio. > > I just ran into this issue as you described. I have pulseaudio-utils > installed, but not pulseaudio (because I am using PipeWire as a > PulseAudio substitute[1]). > > I sympathize with your desire to avoid complicating the packaging. > Splitting the completion file looks non-trivial. Might I suggest > shipping a copy of the completion file in the pulseaudio package as > /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pulseaudio and a copy in the > pulseaudio-utils package as /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pacmd > with symlinks for the other commands provided by that package? This way > a completion for each command is shipped in the same package. The 15kB > of duplicated data seems reasonable, if not ideal, to avoid divergence > from upstream, or the packaging work of creating a -common package just > for completions. This is not really needed. pulseaudio already depends on pulseaudio-utils. I would accept a patch moving the completion files to the pulseaudio-utils package. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
_______________________________________________ pkg-pulseaudio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-pulseaudio-devel
