Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:20:57 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Message-ID: <20011219172057.GA24344@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CCD084B0E779D411A70300508B6622260361F99B AT exchukahis02 DOT experian DOT co DOT uk> <3C20BA86 DOT 6000001 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011219161644 DOT GB23322 AT redhat DOT com> <3C20CABF DOT EC49754B AT etr-usa DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C20CABF.EC49754B@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:13:35AM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> Is there anything similar to this in Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc.?
>
>Well, /etc/profile, hosts, passwd, group and other core config files are
>owned by the 'setup' package in Red Hat Linux.  Then there's the
>initscripts package for the rc.d directory.  And most of the other files
>are owned by individual packages, like bash owns /etc/bashrc.
>
>My point is, RHL doesn't set any particular standard.  If anything, I'd
>give /etc/bash_completions to bash -- it's only useful when you install
>bash, and you have to upgrade bash to 2.05 or higher to use the
>completions.

That's where I would be leaning, too.  I think it makes sense to include
the completions in bash.  Or maybe in shellutils?

The only problem with this that I can see is that they'll be more "hidden"
there.  If they are a separate setup.exe package then it is more likely
that someone will notice them and say "Hey, cool!" and install them.

If they just slide in with a bash installation then, unless we make them
the default, it's more likely that people won't know what they have unless
they're reminded about it on the mailing list (or whereever).

Hmm.  Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package.

cgf