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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > 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.