Doesn't matter to me, going to symlink that puppy into /usr/local/bin on my machine anyway -- without the extention :)
-David On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:50:09PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote: > 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 > >
