Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/19/12:56:50
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> That's where I would be leaning, too. I think it makes sense to include
> the completions in bash. Or maybe in shellutils?
>
> The only problem with this that I can see is that they'll be more "hidden"
> there. If they are a separate setup.exe package then it is more likely
> that someone will notice them and say "Hey, cool!" and install them.
>
> If they just slide in with a bash installation then, unless we make them
> the default, it's more likely that people won't know what they have unless
> they're reminded about it on the mailing list (or whereever).
>
> Hmm. Maybe I just convinced myself that they belong as a separate package.
How about this:
John, why don't you create a "bashutils" package, to serve as a
collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now,
it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh,
bashprompt, or something...
I'm thinking something like my cygutils package, which is just a grab
bag of very simple (single-source-file) utilities.
(FYI, you can find bashprompt here...
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/bashprompt/
the official site is completely flaky, so I mirrored it)
--Chuck
- Raw text -