X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_40,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4BD8AC42.7030105@veritech.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:44:34 -0400
From: "Lee D. Rothstein" <l1ee057 AT veritech DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
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> <4BD87C2F DOT 1040203 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD87C2F.1040203@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

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