RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

["John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>]

Err, what is bash prompt?  Your mirror doesn't say and I can't connect to
the original site...

J.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
> [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf Of Charles Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2001 5:54 pm
> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
> 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
>