X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4BD87C2F.1040203@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:19:27 -0600
From: Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: New package: makeself-2.1.5-2
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>
In-Reply-To: <20100428181202.GB3719@ghost.local.lan>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;  protocol="application/pgp-signature";  boundary="------------enig5F46040B60DD7263AB906BBC"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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

--------------enig5F46040B60DD7263AB906BBC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04/28/2010 12:12 PM, d DOT sastre DOT medina AT gmail DOT com wrote:
>> 2010/4/28, Lee D. Rothstein <l1ee057 at XXXXXXXXXXXX>:
>> 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 agre=
ement,
> or a good practice defined regarding the extension of non-binary executab=
les=20
> 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).

--=20
Eric Blake   eblake AT redhat DOT com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


--------------enig5F46040B60DD7263AB906BBC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJL2HwvAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nq2ucH+wSt9PYwxN9WQLKmQwmGBmbt
OQ1KvhGxbwxezzAGdu5GCjTxB7K5KCY3zSf4WpdXHuXc/vQotWkry/fxz+fiBCWx
5wmyTQGTHWTNpOkO1suypg3Dmi/KaTLy85au5wli+s0FS4zvDnajcbVxKsaT5sEA
siSrAe3x7sZ4IoJZ54RfVIgEnYovs1DzGBdQc8qFNcBMtMNqPzk2W+mEi1eT/soG
yNUbN4kwyEfTNnqayPrRgXFUontvRHm6QM39+nnbv4UMO/rCS+GbEz5MdVUL/mLu
dXD9HvzTiOfBH83WBE7HpEVSbFNT7JAku5xZ2gkCWD70ed5ksT9G7WmgRsddeDc=
=K3Hr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig5F46040B60DD7263AB906BBC--