Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Axel Beckert-8
Package: wnpp

The current maintainer of bash-completion, David Paleino
<[hidden email]> (Cc'ed), currently lacks time to work on this
package and granted the MIA team to orphan his packages as necessary.

Maintaining a package requires time and skills. Please only adopt this
package if you will have enough time and attention to work on it.

If you want to be the new maintainer, please see
https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#howto-o for detailed
instructions how to adopt a package properly.

Some information about this package:

Package: bash-completion
Version: 1:2.1-4.3
Installed-Size: 1220
Maintainer: Bash Completion Maintainers <[hidden email]>
Architecture: all
Replaces: bash, cryptsetup (<< 2:1.1.2-2), xen-tools (<= 4.1-1)
Depends: bash (>= 3.2)
Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.15.7.2~)
Breaks: xen-tools (<= 4.1-1)
Description-en: programmable completion for the bash shell
 bash completion extends bash's standard completion behavior to achieve
 complex command lines with just a few keystrokes.  This project was
 conceived to produce programmable completion routines for the most
 common Linux/UNIX commands, reducing the amount of typing sysadmins
 and programmers need to do on a daily basis.
Multi-Arch: foreign
Homepage: http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org
Tag: implemented-in::shell, interface::shell, role::plugin
Section: shells
Priority: standard
Size: 178338

Package: bash-completion
Binary: bash-completion
Version: 1:2.1-4.3
Maintainer: Bash Completion Maintainers <[hidden email]>
Uploaders: David Paleino <[hidden email]>
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9~), dh-autoreconf
Build-Depends-Indep: perl
Architecture: all
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Format: 3.0 (quilt)
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=bash-completion/debian.git
Vcs-Git: git://anonscm.debian.org/bash-completion/debian.git
Homepage: http://bash-completion.alioth.debian.org
Package-List:
 bash-completion deb shells standard arch=all
Directory: pool/main/b/bash-completion
Priority: source
Section: shells

Please also notice that there seems new upstream development at
https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/, so one of the tasks for the
new maintainer is to update the package to the most recent upstream
release.

                Regards, Axel
--
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <[hidden email]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
retitle 876095 ITA: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell
owner 876095 !

--

On 18 Sep 2017, Axel Beckert wrote:

>Maintaining a package requires time and skills. Please only adopt this
>package if you will have enough time and attention to work on it.  

Although I'm new to Debian maintenance (my first and only work is the
packaging of pragha (https://mentors.debian.net/package/pragha)), I
would like to take ownership of this package.

>Please also notice that there seems new upstream development at
>https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/, so one of the tasks for the
>new maintainer is to update the package to the most recent upstream
>release.  

I cloned the package repository and I understood how syncing with
upstream was designed (very clever, imo).  So, I synced it and I began
working on the removal of the patches that are no longer required, or
that do not apply cleanly.

Once that is solved, I'll have a package and lots of bugs on Alioth to
mark as fixed.  Arguably, this will be the hardest part, since there
are a lot of open bugs and since there has been a lot of improvements
upstream.

Is it fine if I keep doing this?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Axel Beckert-8
Hi Gabriel,

Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
> > Maintaining a package requires time and skills. Please only adopt this
> > package if you will have enough time and attention to work on it.  
>
> Although I'm new to Debian maintenance (my first and only work is the
> packaging of pragha (https://mentors.debian.net/package/pragha)), I
> would like to take ownership of this package.

Everyone needs to start somewhere. Welcome on board and thanks for
joining our effort. :-)

> >Please also notice that there seems new upstream development at
> >https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/, so one of the tasks for the
> >new maintainer is to update the package to the most recent upstream
> >release.  
>
> I cloned the package repository and I understood how syncing with
> upstream was designed (very clever, imo).

Nice! Didn't look that deep into the package.

> So, I synced it and I began working on the removal of the patches
> that are no longer required, or that do not apply cleanly.

Cool!

> Once that is solved, I'll have a package and lots of bugs on Alioth to
> mark as fixed.

Oh, the bug tracker on Alioth actually has been used for that project?

Indeed:
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?atid=413095&group_id=100114&func=browse

But it's only visible for logged in users. That's unexpected and a bad
thing. But nothing we will change anymore. (See below.)

> Arguably, this will be the hardest part, since there are a lot of
> open bugs and since there has been a lot of improvements upstream.

Yes, but IMHO it's definitely a good thing to synchronise these bug
reports (well, those which are still valid) to Github or the Debian
Bug Tracking system — especially since Alioth is going away towards
end of this year. See https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth and especially
these mailing list postings:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/06/msg00002.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/08/msg00008.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/09/msg00004.html

Not sure if it might be a good idea to make a dump or copy of all
these bug reports as I don't expect them to be preserved when Alioth
is decommissioned.

Luckily at least a few of the bug reports in there are already labeled
as being related to a bug report in the Debian Bug Tracking System.

> Is it fine if I keep doing this?

IMHO definitely.

Please tell me if not being a member of the bash-completion project on
Alioth hinders you in doing that work. (That should still be
possible.)

                Regards, Axel
--
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <[hidden email]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
On 22 Sep 2017, Axel Beckert wrote:

>> I cloned the package repository and I understood how syncing with
>> upstream was designed (very clever, imo).  
>
>Nice! Didn't look that deep into the package.

At the time I sent my first email, I was unaware of the existence of
git-buildpackage.  It turned out that bash-completion is maintained
with it, so that's where the clever syncing with upstream comes from.

(As a side not, I'm glad I learned about it, because it helped me in
the other packaging I am working on (pragha).  I converted it to
git-builbpackage)

>> So, I synced it and I began working on the removal of the patches
>> that are no longer required, or that do not apply cleanly.

That's done (see links to git repo below).

>Yes, but IMHO it's definitely a good thing to synchronise these bug
>reports (well, those which are still valid) to Github or the Debian
>Bug Tracking system — especially since Alioth is going away towards
>end of this year.
>[...]
>Not sure if it might be a good idea to make a dump or copy of all
>these bug reports as I don't expect them to be preserved when Alioth
>is decommissioned.

I saved the results of your search filter as a CSV, so that I have more
time to work on it.  Should that be enough?

>Please tell me if not being a member of the bash-completion project on
>Alioth hinders you in doing that work. (That should still be
>possible.)

So far so good.

I'm keeping my work on a personal git server [1], but as I mentioned in
the RFS for pragha [2], I don't think that's a good place to keep these
files in the long term, because I do not fully trust myself as a
sysadmin.

[1]
http://git.inconstante.eti.br/?p=bash-completion-debian.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/unstable
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=876667#26


Finally, I'd like to ask for some help...

After I upgraded bash-completion to newer upstream releases, I got some
conflicts during the installation of the package.  For instance, it
complained about the existence of the completion file for adb:

dpkg: error processing archive /home/gftg/debian/bash-completion/bash-completion_2.7-1_all.deb (--install):
 trying to overwrite '/usr/share/bash-completion/completions/adb', which is also in package adb 1:7.0.0+r33-2

I know that bts (from packages devscripts) and mount/umount (from
package mount) have the same problem, because I locally removed them
from bash-completion (just to test).

However, I don't know what to do about it.  There should be certainly
more files that collide this way, but I only saw these in my computer,
because I have few packages installed.

If you have any tips on how to proceed, I'd be glad to listen. :)


Kind regards,
Gabriel

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
On 29 Sep 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:

>After I upgraded bash-completion to newer upstream releases, I got some
>conflicts during the installation of the package.  For instance, it
>complained about the existence of the completion file for adb:
>
>dpkg: error processing
>archive /home/gftg/debian/bash-completion/bash-completion_2.7-1_all.deb
>(--install):
> trying to overwrite '/usr/share/bash-completion/completions/adb',
> which is also in package adb 1:7.0.0+r33-2
>
>I know that bts (from packages devscripts) and mount/umount (from
>package mount) have the same problem, because I locally removed them
>from bash-completion (just to test).
In the packaging of bash-completion itself, there were already some
instances of such conflicts:

http://git.inconstante.eti.br/?p=bash-completion-debian.git;a=commitdiff;h=116456a898d3468f5ae0c0a609a8087de7cd3e58
http://git.inconstante.eti.br/?p=bash-completion-debian.git;a=commitdiff;h=693e47c80aaaeeb50cf4b2b1f563eacbce65f4f5

So, I adopted the same strategy for adb, bts, mount, and umount.

>However, I don't know what to do about it.  There should be certainly
>more files that collide this way, but I only saw these in my computer,
>because I have few packages installed.

I still don't know if more collisions will occur on other people's
machines.  Perhaps I should just let them happen, then address each
individual collision reported as a bug against bash-completion?


I have just finished the upgrade [1], pushed to mentors [2] and opened
a RFS [3].

[1] http://git.inconstante.eti.br/?p=bash-completion-debian.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/unstable

[2] https://mentors.debian.net/package/bash-completion

[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877450

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Axel Beckert-8
In reply to this post by Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
Hi Gabriel,

sorry for the late reply. Replying to your original mail as I already
had written half the mail a few days ago.

Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
> >> I cloned the package repository and I understood how syncing with
> >> upstream was designed (very clever, imo).  
> >
> >Nice! Didn't look that deep into the package.
>
> At the time I sent my first email, I was unaware of the existence of
> git-buildpackage.  It turned out that bash-completion is maintained
> with it, so that's where the clever syncing with upstream comes from.

Ah, ok. :-)

> (As a side not, I'm glad I learned about it, because it helped me in
> the other packaging I am working on (pragha).  I converted it to
> git-builbpackage)

Good! :-)

> >Yes, but IMHO it's definitely a good thing to synchronise these bug
> >reports (well, those which are still valid) to Github or the Debian
> >Bug Tracking system — especially since Alioth is going away towards
> >end of this year.
> >[...]
> >Not sure if it might be a good idea to make a dump or copy of all
> >these bug reports as I don't expect them to be preserved when Alioth
> >is decommissioned.
>
> I saved the results of your search filter as a CSV, so that I have more
> time to work on it.  Should that be enough?

I hope so. Definitely better than nothing.

> I'm keeping my work on a personal git server [1], but as I mentioned in
> the RFS for pragha [2], I don't think that's a good place to keep these
> files in the long term, because I do not fully trust myself as a
> sysadmin.

Should suffice for the moment. It's probably best to wait until
Debian's Alioth replacement is available.

> After I upgraded bash-completion to newer upstream releases, I got some
> conflicts during the installation of the package.  For instance, it
> complained about the existence of the completion file for adb:
>
> dpkg: error processing archive /home/gftg/debian/bash-completion/bash-completion_2.7-1_all.deb (--install):
>  trying to overwrite '/usr/share/bash-completion/completions/adb', which is also in package adb 1:7.0.0+r33-2
>
> I know that bts (from packages devscripts) and mount/umount (from
> package mount) have the same problem, because I locally removed them
> from bash-completion (just to test).
>
> However, I don't know what to do about it.  There should be certainly
> more files that collide this way, but I only saw these in my computer,
> because I have few packages installed.

This is a very common issue with bash-completion and zsh-common (where
zsh's default completions live), but it's also unique to those two
packages.

Background: Some projects maintain shell completions rather well,
others don't, but the team maintaining the completions does maintain
them. If new completions are added to bash-completions, it's often a
sign that the project they're for, doesn't really maintain them.

So you should compare the conflicting files: Which are more uptodate,
which have more precise completion.

If it's the one in the project's package, just don't ship the one in
bash-completion and it's good.

If the newly appeared file in bash-completion is clearly the better,
you should maybe not ship it now, but file a bug report against the
other package to exclude it, and if that's done, add in your next
upload Breaks + Replaces headers against the last version of the
package which still contained the conflicting file.

                Regards, Axel
--
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <[hidden email]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: O: bash-completion -- programmable completion for the bash shell

Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
Hi, Axel.

Thanks for the review and explanations. :)

On 02 Oct 2017, Axel Beckert wrote:
>
>sorry for the late reply. Replying to your original mail as I already
>had written half the mail a few days ago.

Thank you!
I only sent a new email because I have found some answers and because I
have progressed with the packaging to a point where it might make sense
to share it (through mentors).

>This is a very common issue with bash-completion and zsh-common (where
>zsh's default completions live), but it's also unique to those two
>packages.
>
>Background: Some projects maintain shell completions rather well,
>others don't, but the team maintaining the completions does maintain
>them. If new completions are added to bash-completions, it's often a
>sign that the project they're for, doesn't really maintain them.

OK.

>So you should compare the conflicting files: Which are more uptodate,
>which have more precise completion.
>
>If it's the one in the project's package, just don't ship the one in
>bash-completion and it's good.

Makes sense.

>If the newly appeared file in bash-completion is clearly the better,
>you should maybe not ship it now, but file a bug report against the
>other package to exclude it, and if that's done, add in your next
>upload Breaks + Replaces headers against the last version of the
>package which still contained the conflicting file.

Makes sense.  In the packaging I already did, I removed the conflicting
files.  Based on your comment, I'll analyze which of them is better,
than if it's bash-completion's, I'll file a bug report agains the other
package.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: Still active?

Salvo Tomaselli-3
In reply to this post by Axel Beckert-8
Hello,

It has been a few months since this ITA, but the package hasn't seen
any updates and it is still owned by David Paleino.

Are you still serious about adopting it?

Best

--
Salvo Tomaselli

"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso Dio che ci ha dotato di
senso, ragione ed intelletto intendesse che noi ne facessimo a meno."
                -- Galileo Galilei

http://ltworf.github.io/ltworf/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: Still active?

Gabriel F. T. Gomes-2
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:

>It has been a few months since this ITA, but the package hasn't seen
>any updates and it is still owned by David Paleino.

I have opened an RFS [1], which received most (if not all) of the more
recent emails/activity.  I also marked that RFS as a blocker of this ITA,
however, this kind of information is somewhat hard to see [2].

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/877450

[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=876095#30

>Are you still serious about adopting it?

Yes, definitely.  I'm currently waiting for a sponsor.  Maybe it's time to
ping again.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#876095: Still active?

Salvo Tomaselli-3
Ah I see!

Good to know it is getting some love.

If you haven't done so yet, you can try joining #debian-mentors on IRC
(irc.oftc.net) and ask there.

I don't regularly follow that channel, but the ones I do follow tend
to be rather active.

If you are new to IRC, the idea is that you enter and write, and then
it can take even hours to get a reply from people.

Best.

2018-01-23 20:27 GMT+01:00 Gabriel F. T. Gomes <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
>
>>It has been a few months since this ITA, but the package hasn't seen
>>any updates and it is still owned by David Paleino.
>
> I have opened an RFS [1], which received most (if not all) of the more
> recent emails/activity.  I also marked that RFS as a blocker of this ITA,
> however, this kind of information is somewhat hard to see [2].
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/877450
>
> [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=876095#30
>
>>Are you still serious about adopting it?
>
> Yes, definitely.  I'm currently waiting for a sponsor.  Maybe it's time to
> ping again.



--
Salvo Tomaselli

"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso Dio che ci ha dotato di
senso, ragione ed intelletto intendesse che noi ne facessimo a meno."
                -- Galileo Galilei

http://ltworf.github.io/ltworf/