On 04/28/2010 12:12 PM, d.sastre.med...@gmail.com wrote: >> 2010/4/28, Lee D. Rothstein <l1ee057 at XXXXXXXXXXXX>: >> FWIW, the man page says makeself, not makeself.sh. > > 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). -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
