This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003
- From: "David F" <foobar1996 at hotmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:20:22 +0000
- Subject: Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003
>It's a bit contrived, but...
A *bit* contrived?
Certainly not a byte contrived. A nybble contrived perhaps?
>bash: ./setup.hint: binary-only: bad interpreter: No such file or
>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.
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
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!