[Zlib-devel] zlib-1.2.3-cos4

[Lasse Collin]

Mark Adler wrote:
> > BTW: for strict logic:
> >
> > .h.in/.h.in is *not* the same type as .h, as well as .h.y isn't.
> > Its an template/input for generating .h somehow.
>
> Well in this case zconf.in.h is in fact a .h file, and that's how I
> want to edit it.  It is not a ".in" file, whatever that might mean.
> We seem stuck with operating systems that use file extensions to
> figure out what they are.  (BeOS fixed that with mandatory metadata,
> but where the heck did it end up?)
>
> I still can't figure out what's wrong with .in.h, but since everyone
> seems convinced that God intended for it to be .h.in, I will see if I
> can accommodate both with the least amount of ugliness.

People want .in to be the last part of the filename, because that's how 
GNU Autoconf indicates templates. The .in files are processed by the 
configure script i.e. .in is the last part of the filename.

zlib uses .in files differently than Autoconf. For example, Autoconf 
uses @REPLACE_ME@ strings in Makefile.in files to indicate parts that 
need to be modified using the sed command.

There probably isn't anything really wrong with zconf.in.h, because zlib 
doesn't use Autoconf. Having .in. in the middle of the filename just 
looks weird to anyone used to Autoconf.

-- 
Lasse Collin  |  IRC: Larhzu @ IRCnet & Freenode