Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Matt Rice]

On 2007-02-11 05:00:20 -0800 Nicola Pero 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> > > I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and 
> > > committed 
> > > it.
> >
> >
> > Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not 
> > sourced?
> > So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
>
> Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced.  Not sure what 
> implication
> that does have on the '.sh' at the end of the name though.
>
> Maybe omitting the '.sh' would allow us more freedom in the future, 
> eg,
> to replace the script with a compiled binary if we ever need ?
>
> Any suggestions/comments on what the best name is ?

definately prefer gnustep-config for the above reasons