X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,TW_YG,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:53:50 +0200
From:	d DOT sastre DOT medina AT gmail DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: New package: makeself-2.1.5-2
Message-ID:	<20100428215350.GC3719@ghost.local.lan>
References:	<q2h7758a5c31004210726gc745e9c9zbdf533fa89a66caa AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4BD8509B DOT 4040405 AT veritech DOT com> <o2k7758a5c31004280833jf3b31b16iba1f1590c2f63b08 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20100428165938 DOT GA3719 AT ghost DOT local DOT lan> <20100428181202 DOT GB3719 AT ghost DOT local DOT lan> <4BD87C2F DOT 1040203 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4BD87C2F.1040203@redhat.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

--5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:19:27PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 12:12 PM, d.sastre.medina wrote:
> >> 2010/4/28, Lee D. Rothstein:
> >> FWIW, the man page says makeself, not makeself.sh.
> >=20
> > Fair enough.
> > Two options, then:
> >=20
> >         -patching the manpage
> >         -patching the source and the cygport
> >=20
> > 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 ag=
reement,
> > or a good practice defined regarding the extension of non-binary execut=
ables=20
> > under /usr/bin.
>=20
> 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).

I committed several changes:

-Executable files have had their .sh extensions stripped.
-makeself-header moved out of /usr/bin into /usr/share/makeself.
-makeself-2.1.5-3.cygport file modified accordingly.
-README file updated using script provided with upstream sources.

Hopefully I'll RFU tomorrow.

Thanks Lee for the report and Eric for the suggestions.

Best regards.

--=20
Huella de clave primaria: 0FDA C36F F110 54F4 D42B  D0EB 617D 396C 448B 31EB

--5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvYrm4ACgkQ0Tqi4ZilyVP5oQCggORh8OCGPS63c///kdo5CKuR
WhAAn2ttYuYGZfIrw22LBXdVqzkDZKp2
=4p6z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5G06lTa6Jq83wMTw--

- Raw text -