> Yes. These sorts of gate-wide changes are hard enough. Having to deal > with makefiles that don't use the standard macros (e.g., for cpp flags) > makes it harder. And having decoy :-) makefiles makes it worse yet. > > meem> I remain strongly opposed to alien Makefiles in our tree. > > There are a few options for remedying this. The weakest is to add a > README. It's better than nothing, but it only helps if you actually > start poking around in the source directory. > > At the other end of the spectrum is removing the files entirely. > > In the middle is renaming the files (e.g., Makefile.att) or hiding them > in a subdirectory. > > Meem, I imagine your preference is to remove the files entirely. Are > there any of the other options above that you could live with?
Renaming them is certainly better than a README, but whether we rename or remove, we still need to track the list of files that should have that operation (rename or remove) applied for future syncs. So why not remove? -- meem
