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
