> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > > > On Mon, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:58, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:49:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > >Also, I'd prefer /etc/setup.rc rather that /etc/setup/setup.cfg. > > > > > > > > Wouldn't /etc/setuprc be somewhat more consistent with existing unix > > > > practices? > > > > > > Sure. I'm happy with that too. Mind you, having an extension allows > > > association of a handler in the windows GUI. > > > > > > > *.rc is a Windows resource file though. > > ... which was the primary reason for my suggesting .cfg in the first > place. I'm ok with both setuprc and setup.rc, through (leaning towards > setuprc, if we go with Unix style).
How about [/etc/]setup.conf ? it follows the (other) unix convention of configuration file naming. Regards, Elfyn McBratney [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.exposure.org.uk
