I'm in favor of the .sh extension for shell scripts Aaron
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeff Genender wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Are you concerned that we may change shells in the future? > > > > The startup script should have the following on the first line to instruct > > the system which shell interpreter we are using. > > #! /bin/sh > > > > It seems that a lot of applications use the .sh extension (except Apache > > HTTPD's apachectl): > > Tomcat - catalina.sh > > Apache HTTPD - apachectl > > WebSphere - startServer.sh > > WebLogic - startWebLogic.sh > > JBoss - run.sh > > > > A number of benefits of using an extension are: > > a) easy to find shell script files, just search for files ending in .sh > > b) makes it easier to chmod all script files due to previous point. > > c) easier for FTP clients to automatically determine whether to use ascii > > or binary transfers. > > d) could make it easier for svn property defaults, e.g. *.sh = > > svn:eol-style=native > > > > I would be interested in the opinions of others on this topic. > > I would supply the token .sh and .bat files. > > Jeff >
