On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:35:51 Ville Skyttä wrote: > On 09/19/2011 01:09 PM, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Thanks Jari. I don't mind that file being included int he bash completion > > package instead of lrzip itself. I simply was not aware of whose > > responsibility the completion file was. I'd like to tag and release a > > clean 0.608 version to avoid this problem on other distros too. > > I wasn't aware of lrzip shipping its completion either. There are > upsides and downsides to having completions shipped in corresponding > packages or bash-completion, but in my personal opinion, if done > properly, it's a bit better overall if they're in the corresponding > upstream packages. > > Let us know how you intend to proceed with this; if you prefer to > continue shipping the completion with lrzip, I'll do what we usually do > in cases like this: deprecate the one in bash-completion, rename it with > an underscore prefix to avoid file level conflicts, and not install it > by default.
This is actually the first time I've included the completion, which is why the conflict only showed up now. I didn't write it and wasn't really planning on maintaining one. It just happened that someone contributed one so I included it. I'd much rather it stayed part of the bash completion package, but could you possibly use this new one instead since it appears more complete? Thanks, Con -- -ck _______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
