From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2717 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2009 06:16:18 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from new-brage.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.254.104) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Jun 2009 06:16:18 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 24435 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2009 06:16:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Jun 2009 06:16:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 15200 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2009 06:16:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 27055 Received: (qmail 15177 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2009 06:16:03 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Jun 2009 06:16:03 -0000 Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8C2801E289 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com ([173.67.89.4]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KLS00LBZ6QG2UK4@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:15:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5P6Fo9O008538; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:15:51 -0700 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n5P6FnEd008537; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:15:49 -0700 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <090624231549.ZM8536@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:15:49 -0700 In-reply-to: <20090625003728.GC31894@altlinux.org> Comments: In reply to "Alexey I. Froloff" "Re: Conflicting completion for rpmbuild" (Jun 25, 4:37am) References: <20090622131002.GC5743@altlinux.org> <20090625003728.GC31894@altlinux.org> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: "Alexey I. Froloff" , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Conflicting completion for rpmbuild MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9505/Thu Jun 25 00:47:21 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean On Jun 25, 4:37am, Alexey I. Froloff wrote: } } On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:10:02PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote: } > Completion/Redhat/Command/_rpm and } > Completion/Linux/Command/_rpmbuild both contains completion for } > rpmbuild command. What for? } Comments, anyone? I can't find the evidence of this. In my CVS sandbox, only _rpmbuild has "#compdef rpmbuild" and _rpm doesn't contain any mention of the string "rpmbuild" anywhere. I'm not sure why _rpmbuild is under Linux/ rather than under Redhat/, but both this and whatever you're seeing in whatever version you may be looking at, are both likely historical artifacts. If you're asking why _rpm completes after the word "rpm" the various options that are now accepted by the rpmbuild command, it's because rpm used to subsume all the functions now contained in rpmbuild, and the _rpm function hasn't been updated to detect the installed version of RPM and disable the obsolete options of the more recent variations.