Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:01:43 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com,
        prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com
Subject: Re: DSMs and DJGPP packages
In-Reply-To: <3AEC6FA0.5B18BF73@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010430120117.15144F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > > BTW the DSMs for sh-utils 2.0 call it "Shell Utilities". Unfortunately
> > > this will break upgrading from sh-utils 1.12, since that is called
> > > "sh-utils" in the DSM. What is the correct name for sh-utils? Is it
> > > sh-utils or shellutils or Shell Utilities?
> > 
> > The official name is "GNU Shell Utilities".
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> The DSM specification says that a package name cannot contain
> spaces.

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.