Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > > Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > for that hypothetical license Jeff was talking about I wouldn't > > > know, but even that wouldn't be a problem as you could load your new > > > makefile with -f. it wouldn't be very useful as the Makefile is a > > > building tool, but it wouldn't be an obstacle either. > > > > I think this response indicates that you really don't understand the > > obstacle. > > then enlighten me please, as it seems to me just the opposite. > > I was not suggesting that _any_ license should require renaming Makefile, and > I thought that Peter's through-in very nicely showed how badly astray a > general requirement for file rename could go.
Makefiles are usually mentioned by other makefiles, by configuration scripts, and the like. If I have to change "make" to "make -f changed-Makefile" in some script, then now that script must be renamed. And so on, and so on. Indeed, many scripts just assume that the makefiles will have the standard names, and in some cases seriously heavy make programming can be necessary to fix that. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
