Bug 845608
Summary: | rhq-agent-wrapper-ec2 should use the RHQ convention of ".sh" extension | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Other] RHQ Project | Reporter: | John Mazzitelli <mazz> |
Component: | Agent | Assignee: | RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Mike Foley <mfoley> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 4.5 | CC: | hrupp, jshaughn, loleary |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-09-12 14:59:10 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
John Mazzitelli
2012-08-03 14:55:24 UTC
I disagree with this. Shell includes are intended to indicate their shell they are compatible with. For Bash and the original Bourne shell, this is .sh. Executable files on the other hand do not require the extension and to ensure the executable is cross-platform, should not include it. This is because on other operating systems the extension is used instead of a file attribute to denote the executable status of the file. For example, in windows we have the rhq-server.bat script yet we should not include the .bat when executing it. i.e. On Windows: cd <RHQ_SERVER.HOME>\bin rhq-server start On Linux/Unix: cd <RHQ_SERVER_HOME>/bin ./rhq-server start However, with the use of the extension, this forces us to document the two command completely separately. i.e. On Windows: cd <RHQ_SERVER.HOME>\bin rhq-server start On Linux/Unix: cd <RHQ_SERVER_HOME>/bin ./rhq-server.sh start nevertheless, the convention for all of the RHQ scripts is to have .sh to indicate they are shell scripts. This BZ was merely to maintain that convention across the product. Otherwise, we have one thing that doesn't have .sh and everything else does. Looks like we are just throwing stuff together ad-hoc (which, in this case, we are :-) If you'd prefer, make this BZ say all linux scripts should not have any extension. But the point is - make it consistent. Yes. I see your point and definitely agree. We're not going to change this because external teams depend on this file, and the issue is minor (although I agree, it should not have been named this way) |