GNU bug report logs - #78661
30.1; pcomplete/dnf does not work with dnf5

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 78661 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Augusto Stoffel <arstoffel <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: arstoffel <at> gmail.com, Rahguzar <rahguzar <at> mailbox.org>, 78661 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#78661: 30.1; pcomplete/dnf does not work with dnf5
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:36:10 +0200

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 at 16:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Augusto, any comments or suggestions?
>
>> Cc: arstoffel <at> gmail.com
>> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 12:49:02 +0500
>> From:  Rahguzar via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
>>  the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Emacs maintainers,
>> 
>> Recently released Fedora 42 defaults to dnf 5. This had the effect of
>> breaking pcomplete completions provided by pcomplete/dnf. I have worked
>> around the problem in my init file by means of advice.
>> 
>> I can send a patch with the changes needed to make completion work with
>> dnf 5. However, I want to make some additional changes too so I would
>> like to ask some questions first (I have cced Augusto Stoffel since he
>> added the code in question):
>> 
>> 1) I think "upgrade" should offer completions from installed packages
>> but currently it offers completions from all packages. Is there a reason?

No, this change makes sense.

>> 2) Currently completions of package names come with a very long version
>> string which I have never needed and have to delete by hand. Is it ok to
>> remove that?

I think I used to get that with shell completions so there might be a
reason it was done that way, but seems reasonable to me to remove the
versions.

>> 3) The most reliable way of getting package names without version string
>> is (in my opinion) to use the dnf repoquery command. It also has the
>> (slight) advantage of not requiring sqlite3. However, although I can get
>> the list of installed and available packages from it, I can't get the
>> list of 'not installed' packages. On the other hand the current version
>> seems to return the same list for 'not installed' and available packages.
>> Is it ok to just remove the 'not installed' case and use the available
>> packages instead?

I think this is fine too.

>> Best,
>> Rahguzar
>> 
>> 

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.