> From: Eric Blake > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 14:19 > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Re: New package: makeself-2.1.5-2 > > ... > 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
But doesn't Debian's practice create other problems? If I want to write a portable script that calls one of these scripts, I have to call them differently whether I'm on a Debian system or not. (Other workarounds exist, of course, e.g., creating sym-links so either name will work.) And, if the upstream man page correctly references the script with the suffix, when Debian strips the script's suffix, does it also make the corresponding change to the man page? IMHO--but who cares?--the correct thing to do is leave the suffix alone as the author intended, but to lobby for a change in practice. --Ken Nellis