New package: makeself-2.1.5-2

[Lee D. Rothstein]

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