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. Thanks, -- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora • salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MacPorts • hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
