Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2015-09-23 06:22:09
Size: 1053
Comment: Proposal: stop removing language extensions from script names.
Revision 2 as of 2015-09-23 06:25:09
Size: 1370
Comment: Stub. Baby woke up.
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 22: Line 22:

== Pros and cons ==

=== Reasons for not renaming scripts in Debian ===

=== Reasons for renaming scripts in Debian ===

=== Reasons for not recommending upstream to distribute scripts without extension names ===

=== Reasons for not recommending upstream to distribute scripts without extension names ===

Proposal: stop removing language extensions from script names

Currently, the Policy's section 10.4 contains:

  • When scripts are installed 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.

In the Policy, should has the following meaning (sect. 1.1):

  • Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution.

As a consequence, programs with names such as foo.pl are actively renamed foo in many Debian packages. One of the main consequences of this policy is that a script developed on Debian and calling these programs will not run on other platforms such as Fedora, CenOS, Mac OS, etc.

This proposal is to relax the Policy by stopping to ask to rename the scripts, in order to restore portability between Debian and other systems.

Pros and cons

Reasons for not renaming scripts in Debian

Reasons for renaming scripts in Debian

Reasons for not recommending upstream to distribute scripts without extension names

Reasons for not recommending upstream to distribute scripts without extension names