On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 at 10:41AM -0700, Tim Abbott wrote: > The issue with tar is not on whether tar -xf foo.spkg works, but > whether tar -xf sage_scripts<tab> will complete the remainder of the > filename.
I'm a bit confused with your arguments: I understand the parts about automated software tools needing to deal with .spkg files, but shell completion seems to me to be more of a user interface issue, since tab completion is only relevant when there's a warm body between the keyboard and the chair, and we can expect that warm body to figure out (via our lovely and complete documentation...it is lovely and complete, right?) what to do. Furthermore, I don't think it's necessary to convince all the upstreams to change for us; since we're talking about bash completion, I'll point out that in Ubuntu (and, I'm guessing, any Linux distro that ships a bash completion package) you can drop a script in /etc/bash_completion.d and it gets picked up by the system. I see scripts in that directory for boinc, inkscape, mercurial, ooffice, and others. (As an aside: I wrote the bash autocompletion for sage [1] and would like to eventually see it get installed in /etc/bash_completion.d when someone installs Sage via a package manager...unfortunately, the completion doesn't quite work in all cases and I haven't fixed it yet...) So, I see why the Debian folks would want us to use standard extensions, since they don't want to put lots of special exceptions into their tools, but many of the arguments I'm seeing here refer to more ordinary user interactions. Perhaps it would help if we knew more about the things the Debian packaging systems do, and how hard it would be to make a special case for us. Dan 1. http://wiki.sagemath.org/Tips -- --- Dan Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- KAIST Department of Mathematical Sciences ------- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
