[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] News item review: bash-completion-2.1-r90
From:       Michał Górny <mgorny () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2014-10-19 10:47:12
Message-ID: 20141019124712.41043f07 () pomiot ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]


Dnia 2014-10-14, o godz. 02:41:58
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> napisał(a):

> Peter Stuge wrote:
> > There is a severe behavioral penalty!
> 
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > I really do not want that to be chosen for me.
> > 
> > Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc.
> 
> Well, but see above - this is a huge change in behavior - I really
> don't think that should be done so lightly. I would be against it
> even if I actually wanted completions by default.

Then complain to upstream. Switching completions on/off is really
poorly supported, and doesn't work properly in many cases. I've added
the opt-out for the sake of it, and I still have serious doubts over
the added complexity and maintaining custom patches.

> > It always seemed pointless to me that there are a million bash
> > completion filters installed on my system and I can't use them
> > without going through eselect and turning them all on.  :)
> 
> Is USE=bash-completion set by default profiles? I suppose that that
> is what should actually control whether completions are available.

USE=bash-completion is not supposed to be used to control installing
completion files, just extra dependencies.

> I would unset it on my system to not have completions.

Then don't install bash-completion, or use INSTALL_MASK. Do we have to
reiterate this over and over again with every file installed?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]