/etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

/etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

[Richard Hartmann]

Hi all,

it has been requested[1] that Debian introduces
/etc/zsh_completion.d similar to /etc/bash_completion.d

Pros:

* Package maintainers can introduce their own completions
   independent from upstream
* Users don't need to upgrade zsh in order to get new
   completions for new features in a package
* Completions for different versions of software can be used
   depending on what is actually installed

Cons:

* Upgrades might not make it back upstream
* Broken/stale completions might override Zsh's


What does everyone think of that? Personally, I can't
decide whether this is good or bad. It does have potential
in both directions.


Richard

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=489646

Re: /etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

[Dan Nelson]

In the last episode (Jan 01), Richard Hartmann said:
> it has been requested[1] that Debian introduces
> /etc/zsh_completion.d similar to /etc/bash_completion.d

How does this differ from the existing ${datadir}/zsh/site-functions
directory?  Some FreeBSD port management tools install completion
scripts into that directory and zsh seems to pick them up
automatically, and it looks like some python-twisted Linux rpms install
into site_functions too.

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com

Re: /etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

[Jörg Sommer]

Hi Richard,

"Richard Hartmann" <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> it has been requested[1] that Debian introduces
> /etc/zsh_completion.d similar to /etc/bash_completion.d

Are completion functions configuration files? Why should they be neath of
/etc? I would reject this request and point the package maintainer to
/usr/share/zsh/functions. The admin can still place it's completion
functions in /etc/zsh.

Bye, Jörg.
-- 
Mancher Hahn meint, dass die Sonne seinetwegen aufgeht.
                                               (Theodor Fontane)

Re: Bug#489646: /etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

[Clint Adams]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 09:26:33PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> How does this differ from the existing ${datadir}/zsh/site-functions
> directory?  Some FreeBSD port management tools install completion
> scripts into that directory and zsh seems to pick them up
> automatically, and it looks like some python-twisted Linux rpms install
> into site_functions too.

In Debian's case, the site-functions directory is reserved strictly
for the machine's administrator(s), and thus packages are forbidden
to populate it.

Re: Bug#489646: /etc/zsh_completion.d/ in Debian -- useful or harmful?

[Danek Duvall]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 03:09:14PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 09:26:33PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > How does this differ from the existing ${datadir}/zsh/site-functions
> > directory?  Some FreeBSD port management tools install completion
> > scripts into that directory and zsh seems to pick them up
> > automatically, and it looks like some python-twisted Linux rpms install
> > into site_functions too.
> 
> In Debian's case, the site-functions directory is reserved strictly
> for the machine's administrator(s), and thus packages are forbidden
> to populate it.

What Perl has done, and what Sun has done for its Python distribution as
well, is to introduce a vendor-packages (for Python; vendor_perl for perl)
directory which is for packaged modules which can thus conflict with
neither the core modules nor with anything installed by hand.  That's one
way past this particular objection.  I agree that for packaged functions,
though, a place under /usr is more appropriate than under /etc.

Danek