On 06/17/2012 09:58 AM, Akim Demaille wrote: > > Le 17 juin 2012 à 09:41, Stefano Lattarini a écrit : > >>> Why such an extension? >>> >> It was already in the pre-existing code. > > Yes, I know. > >> And about the reason it was there, >> I guess it was to cater to systems with 8+3 filenames (e.g., DJGPP on DOS), > > I guessed too :) > >> where one can't have file names with "two or more extensions" (like >> 'config.h.in' or, in this case, foo.html.tmp). >> >>> [email protected] looks more readable. >>> >> Or ever '$@-t', for consistency with other rules. > s/ever/even/ here, sorry.
> I don't like this use of -t instead of an extension such as .tmp, but > I don't care much. > Neither do I honestly; we'll just have to pick one idiom and stick to it :-) >> But I guess such changes >> are better done in a later refactoring, to rationalize the names/location of >> temporary files. WDYS? > > Yes, of course. I was commenting the code more than the patch per se, > but I do mean to suggest changes. > OK then, such suggestions are always welcome (even though most of the times I won't act on them right away). >> >>>> then \ >>>> rm -rf $@; \ >>>> ## Work around a bug in Texinfo 4.1 (-o foo.html outputs files in foo/ > > BTW, looks like something we can get rid of. > Yes, but that's something I want to do for Automake 1.13 as well (see also the "Future backward-incompatibilities" entries in Automake 1.12 NEWS file); so I plan to make the change there first, and transport in Automake-NG once we merge back the master branch. Thanks, Stefano
