Re: Completion for aplay from alsa-utils

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

dana wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2019, at 16:13, Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > the submitted completion is in file _alsa-utils
>
> Feels like maybe it should just be called _aplay, unless you think there would
> be so much shared code between future alsa-utils completion functions that
> they all need to live together in one (not sure but doesn't seem like it)

I don't agree on this point.
There often is shared code between utilities that come from the same
source. As you even point out, arecord takes essentially the same set of
options. And _alsa-utils makes it clearer where aplay comes from if it
isn't clear. We've also got plenty of existing functions where naming
matches to package or source rather than the command. It can also make
it easier to handle name clashes if a different aplay turns up.

Oliver