Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<019801c17812$405c9bc0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"CA List" <Cygwin-Apps AT Cygwin DOT Com>,
	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	<cygwin-apps AT Cygwin DOT Com>
References:	<20011126213622 DOT 71874 DOT qmail AT web20004 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <1006938304 DOT 712 DOT 23 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3C04AC25 DOT 90100 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3C04E3A6 DOT AE83A8CD AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:40:29 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	28 Nov 2001 13:41:57.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[72DB6590:01C17812]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Earnie Boyd" <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
> > > Agreed. Shall we get rid of the separate archivers category?
> >
> > fine by me.
> >
>
> Uhm, bzip2, gzip, unzip and zip aren't archivers, they are compression
> utilities.  Tar, mt and ar are archivers.

I know. Your point being? Do you agree that we should get rid of
'archivers' or disagree?

The only things in 'archivers' are sharutils, zip and unzip. Once zip
and unzip are in utils, there's little need for sharutils to be in
archivers, as all the other archivers are also in utils.

Rob

- Raw text -