Hi Drake! You wrote:
> Quoth Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@2008.43-1.org>, on 2008-12-12 22:30:24 +0100: > > I understand that it should not matter to the user what language is > > used to implement a particular script and support omitting > > extensions. But what about renaming scripts provided by upstream? > > In this case renaming programs to comply with the Debian naming scheme > > creates new problems: > > Not being well-acquainted with this bit, I can't comment very well on > what Debian policy would say, but wouldn't using the upstream name > plus a non-extensioned symlink solve several of these cases? I think policy tries make sure there are no "foo.pl" or "bla.sh" scripts in the path, regardless of what they are symlinked to. I don't know what the rationale behind that is though (apart from the ugliness). And in any case, it's a SHOULD, so there can be exceptions to the rule. Ansgar, which package and binary is this about, in particular? That info might make the question a bit more concrete... Regards, Bas. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, | |--------------------| The bridall of the earth and skie: | | b...@zoetekouw.net | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight; | +--------------------| For thou must die. | +-----------------------------------------+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org