Well, I'd object tomcat does the same, and afaik, I've never heard it was a problem.
I think not having the suffix ".sh" is fine when you only have unix binaries. If you mix both in the same distribution, having different extensions makes things more intuitive / homogeneous imho On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 16:07, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm more -1 to it. It really is against normal unix conventions to do it. > A user shouldn't need to know if an executable is a shell script, a perl > script, python, executable, etc... That's all that the .sh really does. > > I just checked my /usr/bin directory and 560 of the 2758 "executables" in > there are really shell scripts. Only 16 of them have a .sh extension. > > > Dan > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:20:00 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> Originally, the distribution did not contain both unix and windows >> files (there are 2 different distributions in 2.x), but given we now >> have a single distribution containing both files, it seems to me a bit >> more homogeneous to have ".bat" for windows batches and ".sh" for unix >> scripts. >> So I'm *slightly* inclined to rename those, but that's not really a >> big problem to me. If it can help some users, why not .... >> >> Jean-Baptiste, do you see any problem with renaming those files apart >> from the fact that it's not really necessary on unix (so I do agree >> that it's not a requirement). >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 05:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi Andres, >> > >> > My comments: >> > >> > 1/ the windows script as .bat extension because it's a requirement on >> > Windows >> > 2/ the important thing is the header (#!/bin/sh) in the unix script more >> > than the extension. >> > 3/ it's really important, for portability, to use /bin/sh (which allow >> > us to use with bash, zsh on Linux, csh and ksh on Solaris/AIX) more >> > than /bin/bash >> > >> > I don't see a good reason to rename to karaf.sh, karaf looks very good >> > for me. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 11/30/2011 05:21 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> >> >> I want to start a discussion about this JIRA here on the dev list: TBH >> >> I'm personally quite indifferent but if we want to change this we >> >> should do it now for 3.0 or otherwise it wont happen for quite a long >> >> time (till 4.0). >> >> >> >> So, WDYT? >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Andreas >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Andrei Pozolotin (Created) (JIRA)<[email protected]> >> >> Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 23:45 >> >> Subject: [jira] [Created] (KARAF-1060) use bash file extenstions: >> >> karaf -> karaf.sh >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> use bash file extenstions: karaf -> karaf.sh >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> Key: KARAF-1060 >> >> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-1060 >> >> Project: Karaf >> >> Issue Type: Bug >> >> Reporter: Andrei Pozolotin >> >> >> >> >> >> currently, windows /bin files have extensions, such as >> >> karaf.bat >> >> >> >> but unix, do not: >> >> karaf >> >> >> >> I suggest to use, instead: >> >> karaf.sh >> >> >> >> so that I can associate *.sh with bash editors like this >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/shelled/ >> >> >> >> :-) >> >> >> >> -- >> >> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. >> >> If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA >> >> administrators: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.js >> >> pa >> >> For more information on JIRA, see: >> >> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira> >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > [email protected] >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
