Re: LYNX-DEV New code for testing

[T.E.Dickey]

>    afaik, there are no UNIX make programs that would choose Makefile over
>    makefile (that's the standard behavior).  The choice of name was designed
> 
> ???? AFAIK, most unix make programs choose Makefile over makefile,
> i've fooled myself in running Makefile instead of makefile
> accidentally. You usually run into this when You compile DOS or TOS
> sources on Unix.
DOS isn't UNIX (sure, I understand that DOS isn't distinguishing case).  What 
_Unix_
system are you talking about.  It isn't any of the BSD or SVSV clan,
nor OSF/1.

>    to phase in the autoconfigure stuff, but when done, there's no reason to
>    keep the non-autoconf'd Makefile at all (so to appease people who find it
>    easier to find, that'd be the time too rename makefile.in to Makefile.in
> 
> I suggest to put not "Makefile" or "makefile" at all into the
> distribution. Instead wide spread practice should be joined:
(that's the practice of people who program mostly on DOS & such, porting
up to UNIX)
> Have something like  
> 
> Makefile.usg
> Makefile.bsd
> Makefile.w32
> ...
> 
> for the no_autoconf case (actually only systems without a modern sh
> implementation or exotic/old/limited make programs need such a makefile)
> 
> And tell people who cannot use autoconf to run these files after
> editing with make -f Makefile.xxx or copying/linking Makefile.xxx to
> Makefile
> 
> Michael
> ;
> ; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
> ;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
> ;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
> ;
> 


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;