On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 07:06:27AM +1000, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 06/03/2011 12:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Moving it to default in @system-tools seems fine to me as a first step.
However, that's not in the 'default' install (but it would place it on
the install media.) If it's wanted in
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
Even if all it did was to get rid of bogus completions it would still
offer a better user experience at a small cost so it should be in the
default package set. Now it does more than that.
It is not that easy, because it also
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
Even if all it did was to get rid of bogus completions it would still
offer a better user experience at a small cost so it should be in the
default package set. Now it does
On 06/07/2011 07:25 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Right, sometimes it is more convenient to start off with a bogus
completion and manually modify intermediate parts afterwards.
bash-completion is simply too smart for this kind of usage.
Hitting Alt-/ instead of tab can be used to force filename
Ville Skyttä (ville.sky...@iki.fi) said:
I don't mind if it is installed by default. I just hope that it
doesn't get pulled in by another package during an update
My plan is for F-16+ comps only, so this should not happen. I guess it
would get pulled in by group updates though (assuming
tis 2011-06-07 klockan 13:50 -0400 skrev Bill Nottingham:
Group updates are not a part of any normal update process (either
via yum, or anaconda.)
yum upgrade is not a normal update process but it does include doing
yum groupupdate Base. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq
/abo
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:12:41PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
Looking at what's currently in the @base group in comps-f16.xml.in tells
me that there's a *lot* of optional functionality already in it
yes, it is currently too much and should be
On 06/05/2011 03:46 PM, Alexander Boström wrote:
Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
new completion sources.
I've suggested that to bash-completion earlier this year; the idea
hasn't taken
On 06/02/2011 05:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Things like bash completion have massive performance implications on network
and other slower file systems esp if its used for home directories.
Forgot to reply to this earlier, but I'd like to hear more details about
this, preferably in a bug
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 02:20:56PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
The response thus far seems to be somewhat net negative, but it seems to
me that most of the negative feedback is also coming from people who
haven't been using bash-completion for a while.
FWIW, it's always the default on _my_
lör 2011-06-04 klockan 13:38 +0200 skrev Reindl Harald:
no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
but i do not like making default-install bigger as really needed
let the users install what THEY think they need and do not go the
apple-way deciding what is good for users
I'm
2011/6/5 Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se:
[...]
Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
new completion sources. Should that be installed by default? It would be
rather small and light.
sön 2011-06-05 klockan 15:30 +0200 skrev drago01:
2011/6/5 Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se:
[...]
Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
new completion sources. Should that be
Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
WTF - Nobody said that
but let the peopole out there fuck in peace with more and more per
default installed
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
WTF - Nobody said that
but
Am 04.06.2011 10:38, schrieb drago01:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary
On 06/03/2011 12:44 PM, David Howells wrote:
Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before
On 06/03/2011 06:25 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Since you are asking...I have a suggestion since I've used
bash-completion for a few years:
- make it modular (perhaps depending on environment variables?)
why? Because some completions take a lot of time to load, as has
already been
On 06/02/2011 04:51 PM, Petr Sabata wrote:
Why would you include an optional functionality (a quote from Packaging
guidelines) package in the default installation?
I don't think being optional functionality alone prevents something
being installed by default. And the point of the quoted part
Am 04.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
Looking at what's currently in the @base group in comps-f16.xml.in tells
me that there's a *lot* of optional functionality already in it
yes, it is currently too much and should be reviewed instead
taken as argument to put more stuff there
On 06/02/2011 05:47 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
From a size perspective, it's not a huge deal - 500k with no deps that
aren't already in @core. From a functionality perspective, it would be
good to fix the issues it has with disconnected machines, etc. - I've
always removed it personally
On 06/04/2011 02:20 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
I'd invite people to try out the latest packages, and if the issues are
still present, filing bugs about them (preferably upstream at
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/bash-completion/ if it's not
packaging related, otherwise in Red Hat Bugzilla).
Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
but i do not like making default-install bigger as really
Hi,
I somehow missed the top post, so sorry for replying in the middle of
the thread. Adding bash-completion by default gets a +1 from me.
Note that Ubuntu has been doing this for ages AFAIK, so it is being
used by a large group of users without very vocal complaints for years
now.
Regards,
On 06/04/2011 02:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
Note
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
no - i am using bash-completion since
On Sat 4 June 2011 10:54:13 Reindl Harald wrote:
but is here idiot-day today?
Please stop with this tone, it is very unexcellent behavior towards everyone
involved in this disucssion.
--
Ryan Rix -- http://rix.si
== OpenSource.com: Where Open Source Happens! ==
signature.asc
Description:
On 06/04/2011 01:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what makes me [crazy] is the arrogant we do not support third party software
[...]
First, saying We do not support third-party software is not arrogance,
but simply a statement of fact about our community.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
... and then you install acroread
Excerpts from Ville Skyttä's message of Wed Jun 01 22:54:05 +0200 2011:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
702329].
We do not support third-party proprietary software.
What's wrong with Okular or Evince?
Kevin Kofler
--
Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
702329].
We do not support third-party proprietary software.
this is a bad
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
702329].
We do not support third-party proprietary software.
On 06/03/2011 08:49 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
702329].
We do not support third-party
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 17:41 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
702329].
We do not support third-party proprietary software.
Am 03.06.2011 18:06, schrieb Peter Gordon:
On 06/03/2011 08:49 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces
On 06/03/2011 09:22 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.06.2011 18:06, schrieb Peter Gordon:
Perhaps that is true; but what I believe Kevin is trying to convey is
that we (the Fedora community) should not and cannot stifle our progress
for the sake of some 3rd-party proprietary stuff.
and it
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:29:25PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up into a few sub-packages.
To solve what kind of problem exactly?
Not necessarily sub-rpms. To solve the problem I was replying to: some
operations are frustratingly slow, and maybe should
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:29:25PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up into a few sub-packages.
To solve what kind of problem exactly?
Not necessarily sub-rpms. To solve the problem I
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 23:54 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to
On 06/01/2011 10:54 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:54:05PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things
Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that
On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:04 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default
install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for
Am 02.06.2011 16:04, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 16:04, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have
Am 02.06.2011 16:15, schrieb seth vidal:
so PLEASE install a new fedora and remove anything not needed for
ssh, rsync, scp and tell me how long it takes to find all of them
what you do with such a machine:
decide what services you will install on this bare setup or
using as it is as
On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
+1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:21 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
package-cleanup --leaves --all
is listing grub-0.97-66.fc14.x86_64
i hope you understand why i not trust this output :-)
grub isn't required.
and then tell why the count of unneeded base-packages should be increased
Am 02.06.2011 16:36, schrieb seth vidal:
please leave me in peace with discussins how a word is used and where
i mean simply the ability to install a minimal-system without any
optional software and this is getting harder every month
I don't disagree - but @base is not that group. @core is
On 06/02/2011 10:32 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
+1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
+1 : Due to horrible
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
+1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up into
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
+1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug
On 06/03/2011 12:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Moving it to default in @system-tools seems fine to me as a first step.
However, that's not in the 'default' install (but it would place it on
the install media.) If it's wanted in the default install, the @base
group is the best place for it (it
On 2 Jun 2011 15:32, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
+1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
I believe it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
Why I'm writing here is that
59 matches
Mail list logo
