tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: bin/*.py files

Hi Brook!

> On 31.05.2021, at 19:39, Brook Milligan <> wrote:
> I have a series of packages that like to install executable files with *.py names.  It seems that the extension is not helpful, other than to match the upstream distribution.  From a user perspective it makes remembering the name of commands more complicated, because most do not have such extensions.
> What is best practice here?  Should we follow upstream (i.e., with *.py extensions) or more standard Unix command name convention (i.e., without *.py extensions)?

I usually follow upstream.
An extension is usually no problem due to shell command completion.

You could ask them to change the names.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index