Message-ID:	<3238B69A.3F74@gbrmpa.gov.au>
Date:	Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:19:21 +0800
From:	Leath Muller <leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
Reply-To:	leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: v2 alpha 960911
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 960912164427 DOT 16232A-100000 AT is>

> > I would prefer it. But why 'unzip386.exe' and not 'unzip.exe'? The people,
> > who use DJGPP must have a 386 or higher.
 
> I can guess that the reason is to make the program name unique.  There
> are many other unZip clones, all of them go by the name `unzip'.  (For
> instance, Borland C used to come with one such.)
 
> Of course, I don't care how the program will be called.  In fact, on my
> machine it is called `unzip.exe'.

Why not just call it djunzip, so it follows in the path of djtar, etc...
Wouldn't it be easier to associate all the dj utils this way?

Leathal.

- Raw text -