Re: Add "makefile.mak" to list of default makefiles

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>> 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