Bill Allombert wrote: > I would second it, but I do not like the wording: > > > When scripts are installed into /usr/bin or other directories in > > the PATH > > why not: > > into a directory in the system PATH, I don't see much benefit either way. Reads the same to me. > > There may be rare exceptions to this rule, and this > > does not apply to scripts in /usr/share or to example scripts in > > /usr/share/doc/*/examples. > > What kind of exception do you have in mind ? Remember, we are only > against "an extension such as .sh or .pl that denotes the scripting > language currently used to implement it". Random extension for other > purpose are still OK (e.g. versionning, alternatives, backup, etc...). > (python2.1,mkfs.ext2, xdvi.real,updatedb.notslocate, pstree.x11) I had in mind the i2e program, which is shipped upstream as i2e, a graphical binary, and i2e.sh, a command-line tool. Granted this is annoying, and I've already asked the maintainer to ask upstream to find a better name than i2e.sh, but it probably shouldn't be forced to change by policy. Also, I like leaving room for weird stuff in general. > > does not apply to scripts in /usr/share or to example scripts in > > /usr/share/doc/*/examples. > > I think this is covered by the first sentence. Sure, that could be removed. > I thing the two situations when the language extension is useful > is 1) when the script is sourced rather than exec'ed and 2) if > it is a config file. I agree. I don't think it's good design to put a program name into a config file. sysvinit's use of .sh scripts is fine of course. > If the script is not in the PATH and never to be used by the user, > the language extension serve no purpose but do no harm. Yep. > I would personnally be fine with only: > > When scripts are installed into into a directory in the system PATH, > the script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl > that denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it. > > but I can easily be persuaded otherwise. I would also be happy with this, and I'll file a bug with a proposal now that it's had at least some discussion. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpVIF6DH1pKm.pgp
Description: PGP signature