[gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 946 bytes --]

All,

I'm seeing at least two ways of handling zsh completion files in the
tree.

The first is in a package I maintain and several others in the tree --
using the zsh-completion use flag along with an rdepend on
app-shells/zsh behind the use flag. The package I maintain that does
this is www-client/pybugz, but you will find several other packages
doing the same thing.

The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.

I think we should be consistent with how we handle this, and personally
I would vote for the first way since zsh is not all that common.
However, if the feeling is that we should nuke the zsh-completion use
flag, I'll be the first to do it, and I'll start opening bugs against
other packages.

Comments/discussion are welcome.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.

I'd go with this, since this is how we handle bash.

Second choice would be to make installing the files USE-conditional
(since zsh is less common), but I wouldn't ever add an RDEPEND for
zsh.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:17:02PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> 
> I'd go with this, since this is how we handle bash.
> 
> Second choice would be to make installing the files USE-conditional
> (since zsh is less common), but I wouldn't ever add an RDEPEND for
> zsh.

I like your second choice. That means we are granting exceptions to
our small files practice, which I would welcome. I feel much better
about telling users to change use flags than telling them to use
INSTALL_MASK for changes like this.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Alex Brandt]

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 13:17:02 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> 
> I'd go with this, since this is how we handle bash.
> 
> Second choice would be to make installing the files USE-conditional
> (since zsh is less common), but I wouldn't ever add an RDEPEND for
> zsh.

Ditto and +1.

Regards,

-- 
Alex Brandt
Cloud Evangelist for Rackspace and Developer for Gentoo
http://blog.alunduil.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Mike Gilbert]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
>> other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
>> according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
>> the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
>
> I'd go with this, since this is how we handle bash.

I think we should be consistent between bash and other shells here.
Either make both bash completion and zsh completion conditional on use
flags or make them both unconditional.

It makes sense to make exceptions for certain classes of small files
(init scripts versus shell completion), but not for specific
implementations of small files (bash versus zsh, openrc versus
systemd).

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Ben de Groot]

On 27 March 2015 at 00:51, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.

This is standard practice already (e.g. for systemd unit files and
bash completion files), so this should be followed for zsh completion
files as well.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 924 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 08:51:52AM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 27 March 2015 at 00:51, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> 
> This is standard practice already (e.g. for systemd unit files and
> bash completion files), so this should be followed for zsh completion
> files as well.

I'm going to go with what Rich and a couple of others said
earlier in the thread. Especially with small files that we do not
provide (e.g. that are not in $FILESDIR).

I'm thinking that, tomorrow or Monday, I will open up a new thread to
discuss what we are doing with small files and ask folks to consider
changing at least part of the practice.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2015, 17:51:04 schrieb William Hubbs:

> I'm seeing at least two ways of handling zsh completion files in the
> tree.
> 
[...]

> The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> 
> I think we should be consistent with how we handle this, and personally
> I would vote for the first way since zsh is not all that common.
> However, if the feeling is that we should nuke the zsh-completion use
> flag, I'll be the first to do it, and I'll start opening bugs against
> other packages.

Please let's nuke the useflag and install the files unconditionally. This is 
the overall agreed policy for small add-on files.

(The only real alternative would be to finally, please, please, please 
introduce IUSE_RUNTIME. Which just got booted from EAPI=6 again.)

- -- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=YceU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: zsh completions -- optional or mandatory?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1293 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-03-29, o godz. 14:22:56
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 26. März 2015, 17:51:04 schrieb William Hubbs:
> 
> > I'm seeing at least two ways of handling zsh completion files in the
> > tree.
> > 
> [...]
> 
> > The other method is shown by dev-vcs/hub at least, and maybe several
> > other packages -- e.g. unconditionally installing the completions
> > according to our small files installation practice and not reflecting
> > the rdepend on app-shells/zsh.
> > 
> > I think we should be consistent with how we handle this, and personally
> > I would vote for the first way since zsh is not all that common.
> > However, if the feeling is that we should nuke the zsh-completion use
> > flag, I'll be the first to do it, and I'll start opening bugs against
> > other packages.
> 
> Please let's nuke the useflag and install the files unconditionally. This is 
> the overall agreed policy for small add-on files.
> 
> (The only real alternative would be to finally, please, please, please 
> introduce IUSE_RUNTIME. Which just got booted from EAPI=6 again.)

IUSE_RUNTIME wouldn't allow you to change installed files.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]