Remove systemd completion: provided by upstream

Remove systemd completion: provided by upstream

[Daniel Hahler]

I've noticed that systemd maintains its own systemd completion, which seems to be well
maintained.

It is installed into /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions, which I had to manually add to
my $fpath (because I build Zsh myself), but it would be there already for the Zsh
from Ubuntu.

Therefore the completion in Zsh (Completion/Unix/Command/_systemd) should be removed
probably.

Given that this is the case, would it still require to send the patch for this to the
mailinglist before removing it from Git?


Regards,
Daniel.

Re: Remove systemd completion: provided by upstream

[Daniel Hahler]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

For reference, the completion provided by systemd is at:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/shell-completion/zsh

It seems to be based on the one from Zsh, at least I've found that this is the case 
for _filter_units_by_property (used in _systemctl).


Cheers,
Daniel.

On 27.05.2015 21:18, Daniel Hahler wrote:
> I've noticed that systemd maintains its own systemd completion, which seems to be well
> maintained.
> 
> It is installed into /usr/share/zsh/vendor-completions, which I had to manually add to
> my $fpath (because I build Zsh myself), but it would be there already for the Zsh
> from Ubuntu.
> 
> Therefore the completion in Zsh (Completion/Unix/Command/_systemd) should be removed
> probably.
> 
> Given that this is the case, would it still require to send the patch for this to the
> mailinglist before removing it from Git?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Daniel.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iD8DBQFVZj/LfAK/hT/mPgARAm8xAKCHtDOu8WanNZg8z0bwfQz59sZq2gCdF42l
c03Gj0FXUNl6IG/CIvd4A9o=
=EABh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Remove systemd completion: provided by upstream

[Peter Stephenson]

Removing systemd completion to avoid a clash with the systemd-maintained
version...

On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:18:32 +0200
Daniel Hahler <genml+zsh-workers@thequod.de> wrote:
> Given that this is the case, would it still require to send the patch
> for this to the mailinglist before removing it from Git?

Meant to reply to this: no, it's not.  Just mention the post where you
gave the reasons for removing it.

pws