Peter Memishian wrote: [snip] > > 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?
What about letting such scripts test whether the Makefile has an "ident" line or not and ignore those (or better: Abort during "dry run" and demand that such files are added to an "exception list") who do not contain one ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
