Sounds like we have a winner. And given that we'll break from the
traditional naming format, it seems appropriate to drop the extension on
*unix:
rhqctl
rhqctl.bat
rhqctl.properties
rhqctl.log
-Drhqctl.properties-file
Let me know if you have any further comments, thanks,
Jay
On 4/19/2013 5:14 AM, Jiri Kremser wrote:
+1 on rhqctl
If user adds it to its PATH env., it will be easy to call it from anywhere as a common
unix command.
jk
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Segismont" <tsegismo(a)redhat.com>
> To: rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:42:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Quick Poll on a naming issue...
>
> +1
>
> Le 18/04/2013 23:26, Larry O'Leary a écrit :
>> I like rhqctl myself.
>>
>> Of course, I still do not understand why the .sh extension is used. .sh
>> indicates that the script is an include or should be passed to a shell
>> using:
>>
>> . rhqctl.sh
>> source rhqctl.sh
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> sh rhqctl.sh
>> bash rhqctl.sh
>>
>>
>> Where as: "rhqctl" (no extension with execute attribute set) on *nix
>> allows one to use the same command on Windows and *nix platforms:
>>
>> Linux:
>> ./rhqctl start
>> Windows
>> rhqctl start
>>
>> And documentation no longer has to say rhqctl.[sh|cmd].
>>
>> Any way, just one of my pet peeves. :)
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel