Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#39662 - [screen] version number on screen binary

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Rasmus Thystrup Karstensen (rathka) - Friday, 28 March 2014, 10:16 GMT
Last edited by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 29 March 2014, 05:04 GMT
Task Type General Gripe
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Gaetan Bisson (vesath)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Any chance of stripping the version number from the screen binary? or is there a good reason for keeping it?
This task depends upon

Closed by  Gaetan Bisson (vesath)
Saturday, 29 March 2014, 05:04 GMT
Reason for closing:  Upstream
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 28 March 2014, 12:36 GMT
That is how upstream installs it with "make install". Given there is a symlink without the version installed, I see no need to move away from the upstream decision.
Comment by Rasmus Thystrup Karstensen (rathka) - Friday, 28 March 2014, 13:26 GMT
having both "screen" and "screen-4.0.?" in my path, stops tab completion at "screen" instead of "screen ". Eliminating one of them from path, would fix that behaviour, personally I prefer keeping the unversioned binary in my path. Being a commandline tool, I think that improved tab-completion is a fair reason.
Comment by Rasmus Thystrup Karstensen (rathka) - Friday, 28 March 2014, 18:08 GMT
having both "screen" and "screen-4.0.?" in my path, stops tab completion at "screen" instead of "screen ". Eliminating one of them from path, would fix that behaviour, personally I prefer keeping the unversioned binary in my path. Being a commandline tool, I think that improved tab-completion is a fair reason.
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 29 March 2014, 05:04 GMT
I do not consider shell completion to be important enough to deviate from a vanilla package.

However, feel free to suggest this upstream. And, in the meantime, you can configure your shell completion to ignore screen-4.0.?

Loading...