Guidance for downstream bash completion packaging after v4.6 packaging cleanup

Ghost commented

2026-03-02 00:13:08 +00:00

(Migrated from codeberg.org)

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the v4.6 release.

In commit e5f62bbc412b6f1bb14c4139a1dbcb97c32b5c81 ("Packaging updates"), the sample 2ping.bash_completion was removed with note:

"Remove sample bash_completion / service / spec (better set up by downstream distros)"

Could you share preferred guidance for downstream packagers on bash completion going forward?

Context from Homebrew:

PR: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/270088
Failing CI job: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/actions/runs/22555811448/job/65333064947?pr=270088
Failure: Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory - 2ping.bash_completion

Questions:

Should downstreams now ship/maintain their own static completion script?
Is there a recommended canonical completion source upstream (even if not included in release tarballs)?
Would you prefer downstreams to skip installing bash completion entirely unless/ until a maintained completion mechanism exists?

Happy to follow whichever direction you recommend and align the Homebrew packaging accordingly.

Thanks!

Hi Ryan, Thanks for the v4.6 release. In commit `e5f62bbc412b6f1bb14c4139a1dbcb97c32b5c81` ("Packaging updates"), the sample `2ping.bash_completion` was removed with note: - "Remove sample bash_completion / service / spec (better set up by downstream distros)" Could you share preferred guidance for downstream packagers on bash completion going forward? Context from Homebrew: - PR: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/270088 - Failing CI job: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/actions/runs/22555811448/job/65333064947?pr=270088 - Failure: `Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory - 2ping.bash_completion` Questions: 1. Should downstreams now ship/maintain their own static completion script? 2. Is there a recommended canonical completion source upstream (even if not included in release tarballs)? 3. Would you prefer downstreams to skip installing bash completion entirely unless/ until a maintained completion mechanism exists? Happy to follow whichever direction you recommend and align the Homebrew packaging accordingly. Thanks!

rfinnie commented

2026-03-02 01:03:39 +00:00

(Migrated from codeberg.org)

Thanks for reaching out! I seem to remember the bash-completion script was tightly coupled an older major version of bash-completion and at one point I was asked not to ship it at all because it was version-dependent... but I'm not entirely confident of that.

I'll look into it further, but on your side, do you know of any comparable situations with other packages? To be clear, I'm not opposed to re-adding it upstream if it is still relevant.

Thanks for reaching out! I seem to remember the bash-completion script was tightly coupled an older major version of bash-completion and at one point I was asked not to ship it at all because it was version-dependent... but I'm not entirely confident of that. I'll look into it further, but on your side, do you know of any comparable situations with other packages? To be clear, I'm not opposed to re-adding it upstream if it is still relevant.

Ghost commented

2026-03-02 01:58:21 +00:00

(Migrated from codeberg.org)

yeah, we either use command to run the generations (the CLI frameworks usually have it) or just pull the upstream bundled completions to install.

rfinnie commented

2026-03-03 04:37:55 +00:00

(Migrated from codeberg.org)

It's possible I was lumping it in with the .service / .spec files (which definitely should be distro-specific). I've gone ahead and re-added it in 4.6.1.

Ghost commented

2026-03-14 19:28:55 +00:00

(Migrated from codeberg.org)

Although not related to completions, it would also help Homebrew and other packagers if https://github.com/rfinnie/2ping/pull/9 was merged

Rows
Columns

Guidance for downstream bash completion packaging after v4.6 packaging cleanup #10