[Fedora-packaging] Packaging clarification regarding bash-completion scripts

Michel Salim michel.sylvan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 16:15:27 UTC 2009

One of my package, bti, now ships a bash-completion script, which
needs to be installed in /etc/bash_completion.d/ . It seems that the
expectation is that installing bash-completion should automagically
enable all applications that provide completion scripts, and so
existing packages should own /etc/bash_completion.d (rather than
depending on it).

Bearing that in mind,
1. Should this be included in the guidelines? Currently, none of the
use cases match: to guard against renaming, and if two unrelated
packages install files to a common directory

I'm proposing "3. Optional dependency. If your package has a
non-essential feature that is not significant enough to split off to a
separate subpackage, then you may choose not to Require: the package
needed for that feature, but instead own the relevant directories."

Are we still not allowing optional dependencies (suggests / recommends
/ hints)? Otherwise, for such features, the dependency should be
suggested rather than silently ignored.

2. Some packages install files in /etc/bash_completion.d without
either requiring bash-completion or owning the directory:
- darcs
- mercurial

Depending on how this is resolved, we'd need to open bugs against them
with the recommended solution.


miʃel salim  •  http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS         •  msalim at cs.indiana.edu
Fedora       •  salimma at fedoraproject.org
MacPorts     •  hircus at macports.org

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list