[Zlib-devel] zlib-1.2.3-cos4

[Mark Adler]

On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
> At 12:11 AM 8/17/2006 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> * Mark Adler <madler at alumni.caltech.edu> schrieb:
>>> Unless you have a compelling reason for the change of zconf.in.h to
>>> zconf.h.in, I want to leave it zconf.in.h.
>>
>> I have:
>>
>> + naming it .h.in is much more obvious than .in.h, because its an
>>  own step building .h from its source .h.in - this is what on
>>  GNU'ish packages ./configure does.
>> + this way is the standard for such things, people tend to
>>  expect it this way.
>
> I prefer *h.in as well, for the same reasons.  The usual expectation
> is to operate on a file according to its suffix, then remove the  
> suffix.
>
> e.g., without any explanation other than the filename, you'll  
> understand
>    zconf.h.in.tar.bz2

To be clear, by "compelling" I meant something like "this other thing  
breaks and it won't work any more", as opposed to "it looks better  
this way", or "it's more logical".

For me, I want it to end in .h, since that way when I double-click on  
it or use an "open" command, it ends up at the right application.  If  
it ends in .in, then that breaks.

mark