On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 08:55 +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> What problem does this cause? Or what benefits does it cause to use >> the correct package? I don't really want to complicate the packaging. > > Anyway, here's another reason: it's possible to install pulseaudio-utils > without installing pulseaudio.
I just ran into this issue as you described. I have pulseaudio-utils installed, but not pulseaudio (because I am using PipeWire as a PulseAudio substitute[1]). I sympathize with your desire to avoid complicating the packaging. Splitting the completion file looks non-trivial. Might I suggest shipping a copy of the completion file in the pulseaudio package as /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pulseaudio and a copy in the pulseaudio-utils package as /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/pacmd with symlinks for the other commands provided by that package? This way a completion for each command is shipped in the same package. The 15kB of duplicated data seems reasonable, if not ideal, to avoid divergence from upstream, or the packaging work of creating a -common package just for completions. Thanks for considering, Kevin [1]: https://wiki.debian.org/PipeWire#Using_as_a_substitute_for_PulseAudio.2FJACK.2FALSA
