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. > > > > 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).
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. -- Huella de clave primaria: 0FDA C36F F110 54F4 D42B D0EB 617D 396C 448B 31EB
pgppf86PWiH4o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
