RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... I have a path ~/Applications/Apache Group/ with no other directory in Applications starting with 'A'. When I cd ~/Applications/A[tab] it doesn't autocomplete. When I look through the shell script I can see... snippit # Turn on extended globbing and programmable completion shopt -s extglob progcomp # A lot of the following one-liners were taken directly from the # completion examples provided with the bash 2.04 source distribution # Make directory commands see only directories complete -d cd mkdir rmdir pushd /snippit removing 'cd' from the complete -d doesn't fix this. I'm CC'ing the original author (Ian Caliban). If cygwin folks want to take it and take a look I still recommend doing so (all the other things I've tried work very nicely), as for putting it in the distro I'd prefer to find out if this is expected behaviour or not. Sorry to have caused so much hassle just to retract it :( J. === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
=== - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:02 PM Subject: RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units) I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... ... Sorry to have caused so much hassle just to retract it :( I wouldn't worry - this is the whole point of having new packages start out as 'experimental'. It allows some breathing room. Rob
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -, Morrison, John wrote: I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... I have a path ~/Applications/Apache Group/ with no other directory in Applications starting with 'A'. When I cd ~/Applications/A[tab] it doesn't autocomplete. That's actually weird. I'm using default completion in bash and I don't see a problem with `cd /cygdrive/c/DocTAB'. It completes correctly to `cd /cygdrive/c/Documents\ and\ Settings/'. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
-Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 11:22 am To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -, Morrison, John wrote: I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... I have a path ~/Applications/Apache Group/ with no other directory in Applications starting with 'A'. When I cd ~/Applications/A[tab] it doesn't autocomplete. That's actually weird. I'm using default completion in bash and I don't see a problem with `cd /cygdrive/c/DocTAB'. It completes correctly to `cd /cygdrive/c/Documents\ and\ Settings/'. Yeah - that's what I used to get too - so I'm assuming it's something to do with this file... J. === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
=== - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Robert Collins' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units) Question: does experimental == test? If it does then we shouldn't refer to things as experimental but as being 'in test'. If not then should the test: line in setup.hint be changed to experimental: ? I know it's more typing but... True. Rob
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Charles Wilson wrote: John, why don't you create a bashutils package, to serve as a collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now, it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh, bashprompt, or something... I'm sure every daily bash user has interesting things to contribute. Myself, I have a bunch of aliases I depend on daily, and install on every machine I get an account on. -- = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
OK, The setup.hint and bz2 packages can be found at: http://www.straylight.eu.org/~carl/bash_completion/ Here's the hint file... sdesc: A script of Bash completion rules. ldesc: A relatively new feature in bash is programmable completion, which has been available since the beta version of 2.04. This extends the built in filename completion to programs such as ssh and cvs. http://www.caliban.org/bash/index.shtml#completion.; test: 1.0-1 category: Utils requires: bash J. === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Thats not what the help file says... Note that category names may be multi-word, e.g., ASCII Games but, currently all categories are only a single word. J -Original Message- From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 3:47 pm To: Earnie Boyd Cc: Morrison, John; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) Earnie Boyd wrote: I think that `category: Utils' is too generic. I'd prefer Misc but that's reserved. How about `category: Shell Utils'? In the current grammar, `category: Shell Utils' means that the package is a member of both the `Shell' and the `Utils' categories. If we are going to invent new categories, at LEAST let us not repeat Microsoft's Program Files disaster and refrain from using categories with spaces in them --Chuck === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Morrison, John wrote: Thats not what the help file says... Note that category names may be multi-word, e.g., ASCII Games but, currently all categories are only a single word. I know that. category: Shell Utils is two categories. category: Shell Utils is one category. (Earnie's example was the former, not the latter -- hence, two categories) It is POSSIBLE to have a space in the category name, but you must quote properly. Just like it is POSSIBLE to have a space in a directory name (Program Files) -- but it causes no END of headaches. I am saying: please let us not do this. Stay with oneword category names. Hungarian-ize them if we must: ShellUtils --Chuck
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:16:58PM -, Morrison, John wrote: -Original Message- From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is fun. A couple of questions for you wrt setup.hint... category: the best I can think of is Utils... is this OK? requires: cygwin (obviously) and bash. It requires bash 2.05a - how do I specify versions in the requires section? You cannot (yet). As for cygwin, unless it has .dll or .exe's linked against cygwin, it does not require cygwin. Other than that, the setup.hint looks good to me. Rob I thought The requires line indicates the packages that this package relies on. If your package is dependent on a file provided by another package that other package should be included here - this includes the cygwin package itself! implied that *everything* required cygwin...? I'm not sure how you got that impression. This includes the cygwin package itself would be applied to If your package is dependent on a file. So, if your package is not dependent on anything in the cygwin package there is not reason to include the cygwin package. If the intent was to say Always include the cygwin package then it would have been a lot clearer to say that. I'd clarify this if I understood why this is confusing. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:04:22AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Morrison, John wrote: Thats not what the help file says... Note that category names may be multi-word, e.g., ASCII Games but, currently all categories are only a single word. I know that. category: Shell Utils is two categories. category: Shell Utils is one category. (Earnie's example was the former, not the latter -- hence, two categories) It is POSSIBLE to have a space in the category name, but you must quote properly. Just like it is POSSIBLE to have a space in a directory name (Program Files) -- but it causes no END of headaches. I am saying: please let us not do this. Stay with oneword category names. Hungarian-ize them if we must: ShellUtils I hate to be a wet blanket about this but I'm not convinced that this package belongs in the distribution. It seems too narrow in scope for its own package. Is there anything similar to this in Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc.? cgf
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
I have to admit that I thought it was quite confusing too. Perhaps if it said, This rule also applies to Cygwin itself because Cygwin is also a package? Just my 2p/c/whatever. Carl -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) snip I'm not sure how you got that impression. This includes the cygwin package itself would be applied to If your package is dependent on a file. So, if your package is not dependent on anything in the cygwin package there is not reason to include the cygwin package. If the intent was to say Always include the cygwin package then it would have been a lot clearer to say that. I'd clarify this if I understood why this is confusing. cgf === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
The same could be said for many people where the sender is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carl -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:25:36PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: Is there no way that the list program can rewrite the reply-to line? That would Make Things Easier(TM), IMHO of course :) How about if I just block any email that mentions Reply-To? That would make things a lot easier for me. cgf === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
That's what the webpage implies. If that's not what it means, then surely you have to agree that the page is confusing. Carl -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:21:17PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: I have to admit that I thought it was quite confusing too. Perhaps if it said, This rule also applies to Cygwin itself because Cygwin is also a package? Now, *that's* confusing. So the cygwin package should say @ cygwin requires: cygwin ? cgf === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:25:36PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: Is there no way that the list program can rewrite the reply-to line? That would Make Things Easier(TM), IMHO of course :) How about if I just block any email that mentions Reply-To? That would make things a lot easier for me. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:32:16PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: The same could be said for many people where the sender is [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case it wasn't clear the Reply-To question has come up *repeatedly*. There is even a web page which discusses it. cgf -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:25:36PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: Is there no way that the list program can rewrite the reply-to line? That would Make Things Easier(TM), IMHO of course :) How about if I just block any email that mentions Reply-To? That would make things a lot easier for me. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:31:40PM -, Ebrey, Carl wrote: That's what the webpage implies. If that's not what it means, then surely you have to agree that the page is confusing. I guess now I understand at least one specific confusion. Robert already clarified the intent of the section. Go back and read his reply to John. He wasn't saying that the cygwin package has to rely on itself. I guess I'll take a stab at adding more words. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Christopher Faylor wrote: Is there anything similar to this in Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc.? Well, /etc/profile, hosts, passwd, group and other core config files are owned by the 'setup' package in Red Hat Linux. Then there's the initscripts package for the rc.d directory. And most of the other files are owned by individual packages, like bash owns /etc/bashrc. My point is, RHL doesn't set any particular standard. If anything, I'd give /etc/bash_completions to bash -- it's only useful when you install bash, and you have to upgrade bash to 2.05 or higher to use the completions. -- = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
-Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 4:17 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:04:22AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Morrison, John wrote: Thats not what the help file says... Note that category names may be multi-word, e.g., ASCII Games but, currently all categories are only a single word. I know that. category: Shell Utils is two categories. category: Shell Utils is one category. (Earnie's example was the former, not the latter -- hence, two categories) It is POSSIBLE to have a space in the category name, but you must quote properly. Just like it is POSSIBLE to have a space in a directory name (Program Files) -- but it causes no END of headaches. I am saying: please let us not do this. Stay with oneword category names. Hungarian-ize them if we must: ShellUtils I hate to be a wet blanket about this but I'm not convinced that this package belongs in the distribution. It seems too narrow in scope for its own package. Fair enough - I found it today and found it useful. I thought one of the purposes of this list was to question whether an app would be a nice addition. Is there anything similar to this in Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc.? Don't know. Sorry - I don't have a linux box! J. cgf === Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use of this email. Experian Limited (registration number 653331). Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:13:35AM -0700, Warren Young wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Is there anything similar to this in Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc.? Well, /etc/profile, hosts, passwd, group and other core config files are owned by the 'setup' package in Red Hat Linux. Then there's the initscripts package for the rc.d directory. And most of the other files are owned by individual packages, like bash owns /etc/bashrc. My point is, RHL doesn't set any particular standard. If anything, I'd give /etc/bash_completions to bash -- it's only useful when you install bash, and you have to upgrade bash to 2.05 or higher to use the completions. That's where I would be leaning, too. I think it makes sense to include the completions in bash. Or maybe in shellutils? The only problem with this that I can see is that they'll be more hidden there. If they are a separate setup.exe package then it is more likely that someone will notice them and say Hey, cool! and install them. If they just slide in with a bash installation then, unless we make them the default, it's more likely that people won't know what they have unless they're reminded about it on the mailing list (or whereever). Hmm. Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:28:28PM -, Morrison, John wrote: -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 4:17 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) I hate to be a wet blanket about this but I'm not convinced that this package belongs in the distribution. It seems too narrow in scope for its own package. Fair enough - I found it today and found it useful. I thought one of the purposes of this list was to question whether an app would be a nice addition. It is. This was part of my response to the question. I'm not going to veto anything if the consensus is that it's useful. I can, in fact, see why it would be useful. cgf
fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:26:00PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:28:28PM -, Morrison, John wrote: Fair enough - I found it today and found it useful. I thought one of the purposes of this list was to question whether an app would be a nice addition. It is. This was part of my response to the question. I'm not going to veto anything if the consensus is that it's useful. I can, in fact, see why it would be useful. I'd like to pour fuel into the fire of `usefulness' of a package. I'd like to contribute the NetBSD fortune package to Cygwin and therefore I'd even like to propose to add a Games section *gasp*. setup.hint: --- sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin Opinions? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
Corinna Vinschen wrote: I'd like to pour fuel into the fire of `usefulness' of a package. I'd like to contribute the NetBSD fortune package to Cygwin and therefore I'd even like to propose to add a Games section *gasp*. setup.hint: --- sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin Opinions? I like it. Games is fine -- didn't somebody or other port FreeCIV to cygwin about a year ago? FWIW, I'm planning to add ddate to my cygutils package eventually -- it's distributed on Linux systems as part of the util linux package along with the (already cygutils-assimilated) cal and namei programs, among others. ddate is the Druel Discordian Date program -- Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd of Bureaucracy, 3161. etc. --Chuck
Re: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:46:58PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Corinna Vinschen wrote: I'd like to pour fuel into the fire of `usefulness' of a package. I'd like to contribute the NetBSD fortune package to Cygwin and therefore I'd even like to propose to add a Games section *gasp*. setup.hint: --- sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin Opinions? I like it. Games is fine -- didn't somebody or other port FreeCIV to cygwin about a year ago? Actually, Games isn't even a new category. It's listed on setup.html. I added it when I added the boffo examples to the web page since I had this vague feeling that someone might be adding a package that would qualify as a game soon. cgf
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
=== - Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package. How about this: John, why don't you create a bashutils package, to serve as a collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now, it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh, bashprompt, or something... Funnily enough, I suggested calling the package bashtools last night. Hmmm, now why was that? Rob
Re: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
- Original Message - From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions? Cool. You've my vote. Rob
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
- Original Message - From: Ebrey, Carl [EMAIL PROTECTED] One thing I would like to say though is that I've been quite annoyed by the attitudes that come over on this mailing list. The last time I checked Cygwin was an open project, available for anyone to contribute and offer help. However, all I've seen is help being thrown back in people's faces, including my own. If you don't want people to help, don't have an open project. It's quite simple. Please remember that there is a difference between open project and anarchy. We do accept help. Lots of it. And I, for one, do appreciate it and try to show that appreciation. However, some things are quite annoying - and getting old topics revisited at a rate of knots is one of those. Rob
RE: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
We've (Carl and I) have been trying to port BSD-games. Unfortunately we
haven't got it to compile fully yet :( there were even errors in the
configuration file which stop'd it running (an extra '(' in some switch
statements was the first...).
If you can do it - I don't think we'd get *any* more work done :)
J.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 9:37 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]
- Original Message -
From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions?
Cool. You've my vote.
Rob
RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Sure. Will do either tomorrow or Friday. J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Wilson Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 5:54 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) Christopher Faylor wrote: That's where I would be leaning, too. I think it makes sense to include the completions in bash. Or maybe in shellutils? The only problem with this that I can see is that they'll be more hidden there. If they are a separate setup.exe package then it is more likely that someone will notice them and say Hey, cool! and install them. If they just slide in with a bash installation then, unless we make them the default, it's more likely that people won't know what they have unless they're reminded about it on the mailing list (or whereever). Hmm. Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package. How about this: John, why don't you create a bashutils package, to serve as a collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now, it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh, bashprompt, or something... I'm thinking something like my cygutils package, which is just a grab bag of very simple (single-source-file) utilities. (FYI, you can find bashprompt here... http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/bashprompt/ the official site is completely flaky, so I mirrored it) --Chuck
Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:36:52AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: === - Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package. How about this: John, why don't you create a bashutils package, to serve as a collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now, it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh, bashprompt, or something... Funnily enough, I suggested calling the package bashtools last night. Hmmm, now why was that? Doh. I missed this. I probably could have just agreed with this suggestion and saved myself some grief. I think that the concept makes sense regardless of the name. cgf
