Re: PATCH: completion for file descriptors

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> ...
> 
> > The other stuff is harder to decide. _rpm, for example can also be
> > useful on non-Linux systems. I don't know debian, but I guess the
> > commands from that directory can be useful elsewhere, too. So maybe we
> > should package the functions in a way that reflects what the commands
> > do (network, package-managers, ...).
> 
> That is a bit more diffcult. I think I would prefer to stick to
> directories which group together commands which users will generally
> have all or none of as it is easier to specify whether you want a whole
> directory than to pick and choose from specific commands taking each on
> their own. I expect that it is fairly rare for someone to use rpm on
> something other than Linux.

The folks around here use rpm even under Solaris...

> Would there be problems involved in making
> the installation of the functions intelligently only pick out
> completions for commands which exist on the system?

For one, the update thing Thomas mentioned. And then people may have
different paths, the net may be heterogeneous...

> ...
> 
> I've attached my AIX specific completions. I haven't put them in cvs or
> anything but when you (or whoever) come to sort out the directories, a
> place could be found for them (and those FreeBSD ones someone sent
> yesterday). I've actually got a few more AIX (and IRIX) completions but
> they are very old (pre-_arguments) and could really do with a rewrite.

The function moving will happen quite shortly before 4.0, I think. And 
since I even added the BSD stuff, I think everyone should just go
ahead and add system specific completions like these (all functions
they think are fit to be exposed, that is). It might help us  to find
the best way for the final ordering, actually. I hope.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx