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. [0]: https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=etc%2Fbash_completion.d%5C%7Cusr%2Fshare%2Fbash-completion%2Fcompletions&arch=x86_64