This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Separate packages for completion scripts?

Seeking opinions from other package maintainers: is it desirable to have
Bash (et al.) completion scripts as part of the main package they're
associated with, or should they be packaged separately?

Currently, the two packages I maintain (fzf and Git) both have separate
packages for their Bash completion scripts.  For Git, that was the
behaviour when I adopted the package, and for fzf I copied the example
set by Git.

Looking now, the only other package that has its Bash completion script
as a separate install to the main package is dbus; everything else just
includes the completion scripts as pant of the main package.[0]

I'm thinking about this in the context of packaging Ag, which also has a
Bash completion script, and I'm thinking including it in the main
package is the easiest option, both from my perspective and from an
end-user perspective.  The only disadvantages I can think of are for
people who definitely don't want the completion script even though they
do want the tool and they do want the rest of bash-completion, but I
could well believe that's an empty set.

Does anyone here have any preferences or opinions?  I'm currently
thinking I'll package Ag's completion script in the main package, and
look at rolling the other completion scripts into the main package when
I get around to switching to use pkg-config to get the relevant
directory names.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]