From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:13:42 +0200
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>, zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com,
	prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com
Subject:	Re: DSMs and DJGPP packages
Message-ID:	<20010430181342.A1130@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>,
	zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com, prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com
References:	<3AEC6FA0 DOT 5B18BF73 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010430120117 DOT 15144F-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.15i
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010430120117.15144F-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:01:43PM +0300
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Then I suggest to stick to sh-utils, it seems to be a valid shorthand
> (try "test -version" and you will see it).  Inventing our own
> shorthand, such as shellutils, is IMHO not a good idea for a package
> we don't maintain.

I suggest shellutils. I don't like sh- :)
And BTW Debian calls it shellutils too.

Laurynas

- Raw text -