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
Delivered-To: fixup-Cygwin-Apps AT Cygwin DOT Com@fixme
From: "Paul G." <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
Organization: Paul G.
To: CA List <Cygwin-Apps AT Cygwin DOT Com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:42:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with	  setup.ini)
Reply-to: pgarceau AT qwest DOT net
Message-ID: <3C04F7E4.8234.34D74D@localhost>
In-reply-to: <3C04EAD3.4225D58F@yahoo.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body



On 28 Nov 2001 at 8:46, Earnie Boyd wrote:

> Robert Collins wrote:
> > 
> > ----- 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.
> > 
> 
> Yes, get rid of it.

	I agree.

		Paul G.