This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: "CA List" <Cygwin-Apps at Cygwin dot Com>,"Charles Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:40:29 +1100
- Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1006938304.712.23.camel@lifelesswks> <3C04AC25.email@example.com> <3C04E3A6.AE83A8CD@yahoo.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earnie Boyd" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Agreed. Shall we get rid of the separate archivers category?
> > fine by me.
> Uhm, bzip2, gzip, unzip and zip aren't archivers, they are compression
> utilities. Tar, mt and ar are archivers.
I know. Your point being? Do you agree that we should get rid of
'archivers' or disagree?
The only things in 'archivers' are sharutils, zip and unzip. Once zip
and unzip are in utils, there's little need for sharutils to be in
archivers, as all the other archivers are also in utils.