Sure. Will do either tomorrow or Friday. J.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Wilson > Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 5:54 pm > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) > > > 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 >