Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 04:19:12
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Pacho Ramos
1 On 02/08/14 12:23, Pacho Ramos wrote:
2 > El mar, 29-07-2014 a las 21:22 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
3 >> Dnia 2014-07-29, o godz. 14:06:18
4 >> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> napisał(a):
5 >>
6 >>> Would like to ask for action about how to finally handle bash-completion
7 >>> on Gentoo. Looks like we are using a different approach as upstream to
8 >>> handle completions now, there was a try (one year ago) to try to switch
9 >>> to upstream style but seems that the revision implementing that was
10 >>> later dropped due some arguments.
11 >> Just to be clear, the arguments were not due to new bash-completion
12 >> itself but due to lack of completeness and documentation. If I recall
13 >> correctly, it was reverted simply because nobody was willing to do
14 >> the remaining work and we had no real documentation for the new system.
15 >> In other words, users upgraded, completions stopped working and didn't
16 >> know why or how to proceed.
17 >>
18 >> I don't know if the Council needs to say anything here. It's just
19 >> a matter of doing the work.
20 >>
21 > Yeah, I have seen new comments in relevant bug report and looks like
22 > that was the case. Sorry for the misunderstanding. There is no need to
23 > include it in agenda then
24 >
25 >
27 Notably, there is no distribution specific documentation for the
28 upstream handling
29 of bash-completion files in any distribution I've seen, it's just a
30 upstream package,
31 with it's own documentation
32 I wouldn't even know what to put into the documentation, that wouldn't
33 be straight
34 copy'n'paste from man pages, files in /usr/share/doc, ...
36 So I guess it's more about the eselect module, and allowing it to move
37 specific
38 bash-completion files to temporary directory, making them out-of-scope for
39 the bash-completion autoloader (yes, there is an autoloader) that mimics
40 the outcome of putting specific bash-completion files to INSTALL_MASK
42 So, yeah, I don't know how council would be able to help here... Other than
43 request people to write the new eselect module...
45 - Samuli