Package Details: fish-git 2:4.0b1.r101.gd5efef1cc-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/fish-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: fish-git
Description: User friendly shell intended mostly for interactive use.
Upstream URL: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell
Keywords: shell
Licenses: GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND PSF-2.0
Conflicts: fish, fish-shell
Provides: fish, fish-shell
Submitter: SanskritFritz
Maintainer: SanskritFritz (akiirui)
Last Packager: akiirui
Votes: 73
Popularity: 3.11
First Submitted: 2010-11-17 22:27 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-12-31 11:05 (UTC)

Dependencies (13)

Required by (86)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next › Last »

SanskritFritz commented on 2014-09-29 18:47 (UTC)

beatgammit thanks for the modified PKGBUILD. Also see https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/1726 and comment if necessary.

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-29 17:53 (UTC)

@SanskritFritz I understand that, but the official docker package in the official repositories packages that file and the official fish package doesn't have those completions (it is slated for 2.2 AFAICT). So, to get the PKGBUILD to work today, I've made the change. I understand if you're not interested, but I'll leave this PKGBUILD here for others in case they're too lazy to remove it for themselves: http://pastebin.com/1LMtJymN Once fish 2.2 is released, a bug should be filed to decide where this file belongs.

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-29 17:52 (UTC)

@SanskritFritz I understand that, but the official docker package in the official repositories packages that file and the official fish package doesn't have those completions (it is slated for 2.2 AFAICT). So, to get the PKGBUILD to work today, I've made the change. I understand if you're not interested, but I'll leave this PKGBUILD here for others in case they're too remove it for themselves: http://pastebin.com/1LMtJymN Once fish 2.2 is released, a bug should be filed to decide where this file belongs.

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-29 17:48 (UTC)

To get this to build with docker installed, I manually rm'd docker.fish in the PKGBUILD. Is this something that should be upstreamed, or should this PKGBUILD just ignore that file? For the lazy, here's my PKGBUILD: http://pastebin.com/1LMtJymN

SanskritFritz commented on 2014-09-29 17:47 (UTC)

beatgammit could you read the previous comments please.

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-29 17:44 (UTC)

To get this to build with docker installed, I manually rm'd docker.fish in the PKGBUILD. Is this something that should be upstreamed, or should this PKGBUILD just ignore that file?

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-29 17:43 (UTC)

To get this to build with docker installed, I manually rm'd docker.fish. Is this something that should be upstreamed, or should this PKGBUILD just ignore that file?

SanskritFritz commented on 2014-09-24 16:13 (UTC)

I'd say fish should pull it, probably the docker people do a better job maintaining it. I certainly would choose their version, unless... :)

<deleted-account> commented on 2014-09-24 15:44 (UTC)

@SanskritFritz - which upstream should this be reported to? Docker's policy seems to be to ship completions for all shells (at least they include them in the Ubuntu PPA [1]). Since the "official" community package includes the completions, perhaps they should not be installed by this package? I'm don't really know what the best policy is here... [1] - https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/4853

SanskritFritz commented on 2014-09-24 06:59 (UTC)

Well, this is the policy of fish, it installs completions itself. On the other hand, I can understand that docker upstream thinks thy can do it better, so they provide one. This should be resolved upstream.