Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 12:12 PM, Sastre wrote:
>>> 2010/4/28, Lee D. Rothstein
>>> FWIW, the man page says makeself, not makeself.sh.
I actually didn't say that, but I alluded to it.
>> Fair enough.
>> Two options, then:
>>
>> -patching the manpage
>> -patching the source and the cygport
>>
>> None of them involve too much work. So now I would like to know (from
>> some authoritative source :)) if a there is a guideline, an unspoken
agreement,
>> or a good practice defined regarding the extension of non-binary
executables
>> under /usr/bin.
>
> Perhaps unspoken, but I prefer suffix-less executables. Then I don't
> have to care whether they are binary or interpreted scripts. Besides,
> having a suffix makes it harder to reimplement in a different language
> (for example, suppose someone decided to rewrite makeself in C, python,
> or perl, instead of sh). So following debian practice of stripping the
> .sh suffix as part of the packaging effort seems reasonable (and in the
> meantime, perhaps you may also want to report this upstream as a bug
> they might want to fix).
First some important medical information:
Suffixes cause cancer in dogs learning to play the piano. A lot
of the contributors, here, apparently, have such pets. ;-)
Now, my opinion:
Amen, to what Erick Blake said. No suffixes, please. Debian has
it right.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
