Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
From: "John Morrison" <john DOT r DOT morrison AT ntlworld DOT com>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:01:41 -0000
Message-ID: <NLEGIGLCGEEOHJGJBGPOIECBCJAA.john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <3C20D41A.3010203@ece.gatech.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal

Sure.  Will do either tomorrow or Friday.

J.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On Behalf Of Charles Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 5:54 pm
> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)
>
>
> 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
>