From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14460 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2013 09:10:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 31955 Received: (qmail 22337 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2013 09:10:07 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: zsh-workers@zsh.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: Re: Install run-help and *.zwc files system wide in build system Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20131110181333.7682d38f@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <131110183043.ZM21795@torch.brasslantern.com> Reply-To: vaeth@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bois.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) Bart Schaefer wrote: > > } since I was at it, I also added a _run-help completion file > } to the patch. > > Why? Does anybody ever actually type out "run-help" as a command and > then attempt to complete after it? After 'alias help="run-help"' (and using the preload run-help function instead of the alias) you can use "help" as in bash: I find it rather useful to get as completion all the zsh commands. This is exactly the reminder which I expect from "help" (you can use it for zsh commands even if you do not know or do not remember the command you are looking for). It also corresponds in a sense to what you get if you type just "help" in bash. > } generate the run-help files directly from yodl, but I am not (yet) > } familiar enough with yodl to do this. > > Another suggestion (I've probably made this one before in past years) > would be to do all of this in perl directly in Util/helpfiles, instead > of needing other external processes piped into it. This sounds rather cumbersome since it would mean that you need parts of groff (line-wrapping and several special code) implemented in perl. > For tarball purposes, the symlinks could be followed when packing ... or > we could actually use hard links, I'm not sure what benefit there is to > using symlinks in this particular case. At least, in the installation, it would be reasonable to keep symlinks (if supported by the system): This saves space compared to copying, and, in contrast to hardlinks, this information does not easily get lost when making backups, binary packages, etc. But perhaps one could just patch the perl file to produce a *list* of symlinks instead which is then installed manually (depending on whether symbolic links are supported). When I find time (no promises yet), I will do this.