Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Completion installations are shown as caveats #2110

Closed
kke opened this issue Feb 23, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed

Completion installations are shown as caveats #2110

kke opened this issue Feb 23, 2017 · 8 comments

Comments

@kke
Copy link
Contributor

kke commented Feb 23, 2017

I'm not a native english speaker, but to me completion installations do not sound like caveats.

If there was a separate section for them, the "actual" caveats from formulas would maybe stand out a little better.

==> Caveats
Bash completion has been installed to:
  /usr/local/etc/bash_completion.d

zsh completion has been installed to:
  /usr/local/share/zsh/site-functions
==> Summary
@MikeMcQuaid
Copy link
Member

I agree this is a weird place. @Homebrew/maintainers thoughts on a better place for these?

@jonchang
Copy link
Contributor

jonchang commented Mar 1, 2017

I like Locations or Paths. I'd also be interested in implementing something that will help writing these as we use them fairly commonly in homebrew/science.

@woodruffw
Copy link
Member

I like Locations or Paths

👍 on this, although I wonder if we can do this somehow without adding another DSL method.

@jonchang
Copy link
Contributor

jonchang commented Mar 3, 2017

Could add an optional argument to Pathname.install that would tell Homebrew to report that something special was installed to this location, though I don't know if that's what you mean by not adding another DSL method.

@woodruffw
Copy link
Member

What I mean is that we probably don't want something like this in the formula DSL:

def completions
  # return a big string like caveats
end

Since it's just another moving part that, like caveats, probably won't stay in sync with the actual formula.

Augmenting Pathname.install could work, although my first thought was dropping completion information into INSTALL_RECEIPT.json or something similar in the package's cellar. That would give us easy programmatic access and keep completion information in-sync with formula changes by augmenting bash_completion and zsh_completion to automatically update the receipt.

I'm not too familiar with how we use install receipts, though, so feel free to ignore that if it's too hacky/out-of-line with the use case 🙂

@MikeMcQuaid
Copy link
Member

What I mean is that we probably don't want something like this in the formula DSL:

Agreed.

I do wonder, though, if renaming this section at this point is going to cause more confusion than it will remove, particularly considering the consistency of the long tail of Homebrew formulae that would need updated.

@ilovezfs
Copy link
Contributor

ilovezfs commented Mar 5, 2017

I think probably the point, at least originally, of putting information about completions into caveats is that in general completions don't work unless you do, or have done, something that we don't do for you.

@MikeMcQuaid
Copy link
Member

Closing this just because I don't think we can really change this (admittedly awkward) wording at this point without causing confusion.

@Homebrew Homebrew locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 3, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants