Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:48:16 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: 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
Subject: Re: DSMs and DJGPP packages
In-Reply-To: <20010430181342.A1130@lauras.lt>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010501114740.29799C-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 Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > 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.

But the package author calls it sh-utils, so I think we should respect 
that.  (And Debian do too many contorted things in their distributions 
to serve as a good example, IMHO.)