On Monday, June 27, 2022 10:59:05 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 06. 22 v 17:55 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> I think that in practice, owning just `%{_datadir}/fish` would be
> enough, because the package one prepares probably won't have any
> additional content in this directory apart from the
> `%{_datadir}/fish/vendor_completions.d/%{name}.fish` file. But of
> course, the more verbose version you used provides more control.
Yeah, that's what I said right below the part you quoted :).
BTW why not have package such as bash-completion-filesystem, etc? I
wish
the filesystem package was smaller.
I do agree that the filesystem package is rather large. When I created my PR to
add the directories to filesystem, there were so many arguments being passed to
mkdir that I had to split them up to avoid an error message[1].
The bash completion directories are already owned by filesystem, so I agreed
that it made sense to add the other ones. If there is consensus to remove
those directories from filesystem and not add the others, I can create a shell-
completions-filesystem package (or separate filesystem packages per shell).
FWIW,
```
$ parallel rpm -qf -- /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/* | pkgname |
sort | uniq | wc -l
119
```
on my system, so if that's at all representative, I'm not sure that it's
worthwhile to create a separate package that is almost certain to be pulled in
by something.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His