Re: [rfc] Move Makefile.in:VERSION to VERSION file

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> > Can we have a different name, please?  Why can't we have version.c in
> > the first place, without any intermediaries?  COPYING was an external
> > file, but VERSION is not, I believe.
> 
> I thought about that.  The reasons I created a separate file containing
> just the version, rather than putting it in version.c, were two fold:
> 
> 	o	keep it completly separate
> 		from the source
> 
> 	o	make the update process as
> 		robust (mindless) as possible.

I must be missing something, because I don't see how these two goals 
contradict what I suggested.  Why is it okay to edit a file called 
VERSION by hand, but not a file called version.c?

Also, how about if you put the version string into Makefile.in (as a 
Make variable), and have Sed create version.c using that variable?

> What exactly is the restriction on the filenames?  ``VERSION'' is a
> fairly natural place to put a version number.

The restriction is ``complicated'', as they say ;-).  But if you call the 
file just ``version'' (lower case) or ``version.in'', it will work.