Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003

["David F" <foobar1996 at hotmail dot com>]

> >It's a bit contrived, but...
>
> A *bit* contrived?

Certainly not a byte contrived. A nybble contrived perhaps?


> >~$ ./setup.hint
> >bash: ./setup.hint: binary-only: bad interpreter: No such file or 
> directory
> >
> >Perhaps the special comment should be something other than the shebang?
> >Just a thought.
>
> I pledge to never try to execute setup.hints and be confused by the
> output if I see the above.  I certainly hope that the rest of the cygwin
> maintainers take that pledge as well.
>
> cgf

You're missing the point. I didn't post that because I expected people to go 
around executing setup.hint files. Rather, I posted it to illustrate that 
the chosen syntax has an already established meaning and Cygwin is an 
environment where the executable bit is often faked by looking for that 
syntax. The choice of syntax is arbitrary. Why overload the shebang when it 
would be just as simple to choose something else? That's all I was trying to 
say.

But I don't feel strongly about it; it was merely a light-hearted 
observation. As I said "Just a thought."

Have a nice day

P.S. Just don't go defining any tags named 'rm' and suchlike. :)

_________________________________________________________________
Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline?  The classic country stars are 
always singing on MSN Radio Plus.  Try one month free!  
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio