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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?
From:       Michał Górny <mgorny () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2015-03-29 12:28:15
Message-ID: 20150329142815.758c15ee () pomiot ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]


Dnia 2015-03-29, o godz. 14:22:56
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2015, 17:51:04 schrieb William Hubbs:
> 
> > I'm seeing at least two ways of handling zsh completion files in the
> > tree.
> > 
> [...]
> 
> > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> > 
> > I think we should be consistent with how we handle this, and personally
> > I would vote for the first way since zsh is not all that common.
> > However, if the feeling is that we should nuke the zsh-completion use
> > flag, I'll be the first to do it, and I'll start opening bugs against
> > other packages.
> 
> Please let's nuke the useflag and install the files unconditionally. This is 
> the overall agreed policy for small add-on files.
> 
> (The only real alternative would be to finally, please, please, please 
> introduce IUSE_RUNTIME. Which just got booted from EAPI=6 again.)

IUSE_RUNTIME wouldn't allow you to change installed files.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

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