On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: >> From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, bug-make@gnu.org >> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 02:06:54 -0400 >> >> On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 21:28 +0100, Jonny Grant wrote: >> > I have a few, but triggered by make -f makefile.mak. So it would be >> > quite useful GNU Make could pick up the Windows makefile extension >> > .MAK >> >> If Eli feels this is useful for Windows implementations he can add it; >> however, I don't want this added for the non-Windows ports. I've never >> seen anyone name a makefile like this on any UNIX/POSIX system, ever. >> >> As Reinier points out, on UNIX/POSIX systems you often see ".mk" used as >> an extension, but never (IME) "Makefile.mk"; UNIX/POSIX environments >> don't rely (solely) on extensions and (again IME) have no problem >> understanding that files named "Makefile" or "makefile" are makefiles, >> even without extensions. > > Should we add "Makefile.mk" for Posix hosts and "makefile.mak" for > Windows, then?
Please do not (for Posix) For instance we use a lot of include of piece for our Makefile(s).. all these pieces are indeed call <foo>.mk but these files are fragment and are not to be run directly. Makefile.mk is at best a pleonasm, and if someone really, really likes that, it is already supported via -f Makefile.mk > >> Renaming the Windows README files is also fine with me if it's fine with >> Eli. > > My only doubt about this request is that README files for other > platforms will still be called README.<system>. Should we rename them > all? Why inflict some vestigial CP/M 'feature' on the rest of the world ? Norbert _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
