From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Cagney Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [rfc] Move Makefile.in:VERSION to VERSION file Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:20:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3AB62D06.55308D3A@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00348.html 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.