Re: ITP: shtool

[Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Torsten Landschoff <t.landschoff@gmx.net> writes:

> As I noted before I would like to package shtool. I tried it out and it seems
> to be a lot of fun :-)
> 
>   It currently contains the following tools:
> 
>   echo       Print string with optional construct expansion
> [...]

Will these tools really be installed with those names? I. e. are they
intended to be replacements for the usual tools? I wouldn't really
like that, since that would make it difficult to package, and could
break scripts. Perhaps you could just prefix all commands with
"shtools" or similar ("path" e. g. is a bit too generic for my taste).

	Falk