On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 00:44:18 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Friday 05 June 2009, David Paleino wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:47:18 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > What's the reason for not installing it anyway? If there is a good one, > > > I think it should at least be mentioned in the change log. > > > > Didn't we agree that upstream one was better than our? Wasn't that also the > > reason to install it as "_subversion", i.e. to avoid filename collision > > with upstream's? > > I don't recall any of that, perhaps I wasn't yet following upstream bash- > completion when that was discussed [0]. And I'm certain a lot of bash- > completion users don't do that either, therefore this information would be > very good to have in CHANGES to avoid confusion (that's what I did when I > removed hg).
Added. > > Anyway, we could also revert that commit, no hard feelings about it. > > Like Guillaume, I'd prefer if it was kept around in the dist tarball for a > while even if not installed by default. Add it to EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am? Done now :) > [0] Actually I've several times had the intention to ask why it was named > _subversion with the underscore but never did; anyway now I know ;) Eh, sorry, I don't know where that discussion was made, maybe also on IRC only between me and Luk? Or maybe some bugreport? Can't really recall :( David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list Bash-completion-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel