Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-08 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
2011/9/8 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org: Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll commit this today. -- Best regards, Michał Górny Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields one for AUTHOR and one for MAINTAINER, Also in the code do not use the autotols-utils...

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:02 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: 2011/9/8 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org: Done. Also, added an example. If nobody has further objections, I'll commit this today. -- Best regards, Michał Górny Dunno but shouldn't there be two fields

[gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself. That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is using that scheme to rename installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne 1.9.2011 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a): Hello, Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself. That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On 09/01/2011 07:48 AM, Michał Górny wrote: Hello, Our bash-completion.eclass is awful and ugly. I'm not even talking about flags and stuff now but dobashcompletion() itself. That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote: That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is using that scheme to rename installed file. Furthermore, it uses two eclass

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a): On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:56:42 +0200 Tomáš Chvátalscarab...@gentoo.org wrote: That function doesn't follow do*() argument scheme; it matches rather one used by new*() funcs. Sadly, a number of ebuilds is using that scheme to rename installed file.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote: I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not collide) and deprecate bash-completion.eclass? I'd rather keep this in a separate bash-completion-2.eclass. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:27:12 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote: I think the way to go would be to reimplement it completely. Maybe just put dobashcomp() and newbashcomp() functions in eutils (to not collide) and deprecate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 15:20 Thu 01 Sep , Tomáš Chvátal wrote: Dne 1.9.2011 15:15, Michał Górny napsal(a): We can either go with a new func and retroactively replace the eclass, or retroactively fix all uses and fix the old funcs. As even if you fix main tree you can't ensure that you won't mess with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rewriting bash-completion.eclass

2011-09-01 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Michał Górny wrote: So, here it goes. However, I'm not sure if that even deserves a dedicated function as the destination is pretty constant. # @BLURB: A few quick functions to install bash-completion files # @DESCRIPTION: # A few simple functions to help installing