On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Viktor Szakáts<harbour...@syenar.hu> wrote: > Hi Phil, > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Viktor Szakáts<harbour...@syenar.hu> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to rename .cf files to .mk. >>> >>> .mk is listed as official extension for GNU Make files, >>> while .cf is just some sort Harbour speciality. >> >> While I think it's no much sense, it feels harmless to me. > > It may make some sense because some tools may turn > on syntax highlighting for example, or do some other > associated features to such known extension. It's > always better to use standard extensions if there is > one. .mk is also used in GNU Make documentation > examples.
The tools I use provide makefile syntax highlighting for .cf out of the box. As well as for .mk. So .cf extension seems to be traditional, to. >>> [ I may also rename /config dir to /gnumake. >> >> I'm against it. > > Any reasons? > > [ for me 'config' doesn't seem like a common name for > similar purpose in other projects, nor does it really > describe the content, which is pure gnu make > logic/files/script. ] It is a traditional name for GNU build environments. Also, it's mnemonic while "gnumake" is very hard to remember. >>> Plus some >>> support scripts would also better be moved there eventually, >>> since they belong together for the most part. ] >> >> Which scripts? > > The ones in /bin and maybe /package. postinst.* in the first > round. Currently the make logic and varnames are scattered > in these files and dirs, which makes them more difficult to > keep in sync. Most /bin scripts are now executed from postinst > scripts. I know some of them are also valid as stdalone > scripts (hb-mkdyn.sh and hb-mkimp.bat), plus I'd also wait > until we drop hbmk script before doing more changes here. Ok. -- Ph. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
