[Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#768005: xl / xen bash completion

[Hans van Kranenburg]

Hi,

On 2/12/19 2:27 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/11/19 2:01 PM, Adi Kriegisch wrote:
>>
>>> Reassigning to Debian Xen team, since I that makes more sense. We
>>> totally missed this on our (release) radar.
>>>
>>> And indeed, we're shipping the upstream completion file now. Adi, I see
>>> how you're improving it, and I like it.
>> I'm happy you like it...
>>  
>>> So, we should probably ship this instead, but at the same time, the
>>> right (tm) place to move this is upstream. We're activetly trying to get
>>> rid of "adjusted copies of upstream stuff" in the packaging.
>> I think it would be great if you could ship that for Buster because I don't
>> think upstream will merge it within the next month... ;-)
>>
>>> Would you mind making an upstream patch out of this? I can help with
>>> that if needed. Then it gets proper review, and upstream can maintain it
>>> when commands are added/changed etc.
>> Find the patch attached; it is based on upstream's repository[1]. Feel free
>> to submit it upstream (no need to credit me; this is just copied together
>> from xm and upstream's command list).
> 
> Well, there's the "two sides of the coin"... There's getting credits for
> doing work, but you'll also get blame because the work is never good enough.
> 
> It's nice that this improved completion script is adding things on top
> of simple first-level commands, but when reviewing this, the first
> command I looked at is xl create. My first question would be: did you
> compare the actual current result to the xl man page?
> 
> For example, I see that xl create has options like -q, --quiet, -f=FILE,
> --defconfig=FILE, -p, -F, -V, --vncviewer, -A, --vncviewer-autopass, -c,
> and (whoa!!) even key=value "It is possible to pass key=value pairs on
> the command line to provide options as if they were written in the
> configuration file"... Ok, that last one is probably a bit too much to
> ask completion to have an opinion about, but...
> 
> You get the picture. Your completion file just has options='-c'.
> 
> What do you think would be the best to do with this? Have a thorough
> review and comparison and add all possible options and test them? Or,
> take a step back and pretend it can do less, like the upstream one?
> 
> I can't just submit a patch upstream with myself as "credit" in this
> state, because I know these are the questions that upstream developers
> will be throwing at me immediately.

Initially, I thought that this file was already converted to xl, but
that seems not to be the case. I do not think it's a good idea to
include this, since it's simply doing an incorrect thing in many places,
e.g. suggesting phy: obsolete syntax, but also the options just don't
match xl.

So, this needs someone who actually uses bash completion a lot, and
wants to take ownership of this task, converting and testing everything
and taking it upstream first.

I'm not going to do that now, sorry.

Hans