On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Todd Vierling wrote:

> : .lo is a rather bad name to use for `local objects,' since it's already
> : used by libutil for `library objects'.
> 
> It doesn't matter what we use it for in our local tree with pmake
> makefiles.  This was discussed at length, but apparently the crunch stuff
> wasn't noticed (and apparently already used `.lo').

Well, yes, it should work fine, unless someone ever ants to combine
support for libtool and BSD-type make stuff into one source tree,
which is probably unlikely. But why open up even the unlikely
possibility, as well as creating confusion, if we can fix it this
early in the game?

cjs

Curt Sampson    cjs@portal.ca	   Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.	   Through infinite mist, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC  (604) 257-9400	   In code possess'd of invisible folly.