On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok--I'm sorry, but none of what you said made any sense to me.
>
> > I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it
> > does it when it's necessary.
>
> I'm asking why tab-completion changed from allowing tab-
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, you hit tab to complete certain commands and filenames. It seems like
> Ubuntu is trying to be helpful by showing you only the things it thinks you
> need.
bash completion isn't an Ubuntu feature specifically - it's a bash
feature
Try with the following in your ~/.bashrc:
shopt -u progcomp
That turns off Programmable Completion (see the section in bash man
page for more) and leaves you (well, it leaves me) with the "normal"
file-based tab-completion.
Actually, I'm a fan of programmable completion, but I don't like
On 11/10/2007 Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> I don't think it's a good argument to say that people need to have
> user-friendly hand-holding at the command prompt. If I want to run 'evince
> somefile.asp' I should be able to. I don't care if the extension is .asp
> .pdf or .mystupidfile.
>
The s
> you can of course modify tab-completion by
> modifying /etc/bash_completion and the files in /etc/bash_completion.d
> that might be what you want to do.
If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
update to the bash package?
> there are lots and lots of reasons to
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> update to the bash package?
>
No; it is a configuration file, which means dpkg will prompt you whether or
not to replace the file. You can choose not to.
On 11/10/07 23:51, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> The shortest path to solve usability of this would be to complete
> "restricted" for the first tab, and "all files" for the second. When I
> have file extension corrected, I love unzip to complete only .zip files.
> But this will always be in the way in
> > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> > update to the bash package?
>
> not if you modify them in your own .bashrc
Yeah--but system-wide I want it off.
On the hosting server I own, I have 4 other admins that would absolutely hate
this.
> sniffing the m
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> > > update to the bash package?
> >
> > not if you modify them in your own .bashrc
>
> Yeah--but system-wide I want it off.
> On the hosting server
