Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
Cc: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:28:33
Message-Id: 20150329142815.758c15ee@pomiot.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory? by "Andreas K. Huettel"
1 Dnia 2015-03-29, o godz. 14:22:56
2 "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> napisał(a):
3
4 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
5 > Hash: SHA512
6 >
7 > Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2015, 17:51:04 schrieb William Hubbs:
8 >
9 > > I'm seeing at least two ways of handling zsh completion files in the
10 > > tree.
11 > >
12 > [...]
13 >
14 > > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
15 > > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
16 > > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
17 > > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
18 > >
19 > > I think we should be consistent with how we handle this, and personally
20 > > I would vote for the first way since zsh is not all that common.
21 > > However, if the feeling is that we should nuke the zsh-completion use
22 > > flag, I'll be the first to do it, and I'll start opening bugs against
23 > > other packages.
24 >
25 > Please let's nuke the useflag and install the files unconditionally. This is
26 > the overall agreed policy for small add-on files.
27 >
28 > (The only real alternative would be to finally, please, please, please
29 > introduce IUSE_RUNTIME. Which just got booted from EAPI=6 again.)
30
31 IUSE_RUNTIME wouldn't allow you to change installed files.
32
33 --
34 Best regards,
35 Michał Górny