This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: /etc/setup/setup.cfg ?
- From: "Elfyn McBratney" <elfyn dot mcbratney at exposure dot org dot uk>
- To: "cygwin-apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:11:25 -0000
- Subject: Re: /etc/setup/setup.cfg ?
- References: <Pine.GSO.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "Elfyn McBratney" <elfyn at exposure dot org dot uk>
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 07:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 07:49:27AM +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.
elfyn at exposure dot org dot uk