What are .in files?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7












Sometimes in the sources of projects I see "*.in" files. For example, a bunch of "Makefile.in"s. What are they for and/or what does the ".in" part mean? I assume that this has something to do with autoconf or make or something like those, but I'm not sure.



I've tried searching for ".in file extension", "autoconf .in file extension", "autoconf .in", "autoconf dot in", and other variants, with no luck.






compiling make configure autoconf







share|improve this question























  • If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
    – Boris Burkov
    Jul 25 '13 at 10:04










  • I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
    – Bozeyman9000
    8 mins ago














up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7












Sometimes in the sources of projects I see "*.in" files. For example, a bunch of "Makefile.in"s. What are they for and/or what does the ".in" part mean? I assume that this has something to do with autoconf or make or something like those, but I'm not sure.



I've tried searching for ".in file extension", "autoconf .in file extension", "autoconf .in", "autoconf dot in", and other variants, with no luck.






compiling make configure autoconf







share|improve this question























  • If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
    – Boris Burkov
    Jul 25 '13 at 10:04










  • I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
    – Bozeyman9000
    8 mins ago












up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
22
down vote

favorite
7






7





Sometimes in the sources of projects I see "*.in" files. For example, a bunch of "Makefile.in"s. What are they for and/or what does the ".in" part mean? I assume that this has something to do with autoconf or make or something like those, but I'm not sure.



I've tried searching for ".in file extension", "autoconf .in file extension", "autoconf .in", "autoconf dot in", and other variants, with no luck.






compiling make configure autoconf







share|improve this question















Sometimes in the sources of projects I see "*.in" files. For example, a bunch of "Makefile.in"s. What are they for and/or what does the ".in" part mean? I assume that this has something to do with autoconf or make or something like those, but I'm not sure.



I've tried searching for ".in file extension", "autoconf .in file extension", "autoconf .in", "autoconf dot in", and other variants, with no luck.






compiling make configure autoconf




compiling make configure autoconf






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 25 '13 at 23:23









Gilles

516k12210271555




516k12210271555










asked Jul 25 '13 at 7:41









strugee

8,0411252100




8,0411252100











  • If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
    – Boris Burkov
    Jul 25 '13 at 10:04










  • I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
    – Bozeyman9000
    8 mins ago
















  • If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
    – Boris Burkov
    Jul 25 '13 at 10:04










  • I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
    – Bozeyman9000
    8 mins ago















If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
– Boris Burkov
Jul 25 '13 at 10:04




If you want to know how autotools work, I suggest this series of articles: freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/….
– Boris Burkov
Jul 25 '13 at 10:04












I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
– Bozeyman9000
8 mins ago




I found this in my google search. Kinda scary. fileinfo.com/extension/in
– Bozeyman9000
8 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
14
down vote



accepted










it's just a convention that signifies the given file is for input; in my experience, these files tend to be a sort of generic template from which a specific output file or script results.






share|improve this answer
















  • 2




    Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
    – spinkus
    Jul 5 '14 at 12:08

















up vote
29
down vote













I believe the automake process involving a Makefile.in is something like this:



 Makefile.am
 |
 '/
+--------------+
| automake |
+--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile.in
 |
 '/
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ./configure |<-- | autoconf |<-- configure.in
+--------------+ +--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile


Nobody actually writes a Makefile.in. The only programmer-defined file here is the Makefile.am.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:03

















up vote
5
down vote













They are input files for the m4 macro preprocessor. Among other things, these files contain macros marked by @, that get expanded by m4.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:02










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84380%2fwhat-are-in-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
14
down vote



accepted










it's just a convention that signifies the given file is for input; in my experience, these files tend to be a sort of generic template from which a specific output file or script results.






share|improve this answer
















  • 2




    Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
    – spinkus
    Jul 5 '14 at 12:08














up vote
14
down vote



accepted










it's just a convention that signifies the given file is for input; in my experience, these files tend to be a sort of generic template from which a specific output file or script results.






share|improve this answer
















  • 2




    Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
    – spinkus
    Jul 5 '14 at 12:08












up vote
14
down vote



accepted







up vote
14
down vote



accepted






it's just a convention that signifies the given file is for input; in my experience, these files tend to be a sort of generic template from which a specific output file or script results.






share|improve this answer












it's just a convention that signifies the given file is for input; in my experience, these files tend to be a sort of generic template from which a specific output file or script results.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Jul 25 '13 at 7:43









Josh McGee

56836




56836







  • 2




    Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
    – spinkus
    Jul 5 '14 at 12:08












  • 2




    Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
    – spinkus
    Jul 5 '14 at 12:08







2




2




Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
– spinkus
Jul 5 '14 at 12:08




Out of interest, could you cite some examples where ".in" is used in this way outside of the autoconf realm?
– spinkus
Jul 5 '14 at 12:08












up vote
29
down vote













I believe the automake process involving a Makefile.in is something like this:



 Makefile.am
 |
 '/
+--------------+
| automake |
+--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile.in
 |
 '/
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ./configure |<-- | autoconf |<-- configure.in
+--------------+ +--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile


Nobody actually writes a Makefile.in. The only programmer-defined file here is the Makefile.am.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:03














up vote
29
down vote













I believe the automake process involving a Makefile.in is something like this:



 Makefile.am
 |
 '/
+--------------+
| automake |
+--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile.in
 |
 '/
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ./configure |<-- | autoconf |<-- configure.in
+--------------+ +--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile


Nobody actually writes a Makefile.in. The only programmer-defined file here is the Makefile.am.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:03












up vote
29
down vote










up vote
29
down vote









I believe the automake process involving a Makefile.in is something like this:



 Makefile.am
 |
 '/
+--------------+
| automake |
+--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile.in
 |
 '/
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ./configure |<-- | autoconf |<-- configure.in
+--------------+ +--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile


Nobody actually writes a Makefile.in. The only programmer-defined file here is the Makefile.am.






share|improve this answer














I believe the automake process involving a Makefile.in is something like this:



 Makefile.am
 |
 '/
+--------------+
| automake |
+--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile.in
 |
 '/
+--------------+ +--------------+
| ./configure |<-- | autoconf |<-- configure.in
+--------------+ +--------------+
 |
 '/
 Makefile


Nobody actually writes a Makefile.in. The only programmer-defined file here is the Makefile.am.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jul 25 '13 at 8:29

























answered Jul 25 '13 at 8:19









Trevor Hickey

5473713




5473713







  • 1




    Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:03












  • 1




    Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:03







1




1




Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
– Simon Richter
Jul 25 '13 at 14:03




Well, on occasion I've written a Makefile.in, because automake wouldn't do what I want.
– Simon Richter
Jul 25 '13 at 14:03










up vote
5
down vote













They are input files for the m4 macro preprocessor. Among other things, these files contain macros marked by @, that get expanded by m4.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:02














up vote
5
down vote













They are input files for the m4 macro preprocessor. Among other things, these files contain macros marked by @, that get expanded by m4.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:02












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









They are input files for the m4 macro preprocessor. Among other things, these files contain macros marked by @, that get expanded by m4.






share|improve this answer












They are input files for the m4 macro preprocessor. Among other things, these files contain macros marked by @, that get expanded by m4.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Jul 25 '13 at 9:56









ninjalj

1,19799




1,19799







  • 1




    Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:02












  • 1




    Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
    – Simon Richter
    Jul 25 '13 at 14:02







1




1




Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
– Simon Richter
Jul 25 '13 at 14:02




Nope. Makefile.in is never touched by anything m4 related.
– Simon Richter
Jul 25 '13 at 14:02

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84380%2fwhat-are-in-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































-

Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this question asked Sep 26 at 0:12 ToanLuong 49 9 add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this questi...
Read more

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP 1 How can I extract a single band from multi-band raster in QGIS? I have an remote sensed image which has 6 bands (including NDVI band), I want to display each band separately, but have no idea how to do. I have seen some questions similar here but none worked for me. The original image (has 6 bands) is: I want to display the band 6 which should be like this: But I tried gdal_translate, and couldn't get the correct result. What I have got is: qgis raster multi-band share | improve this question edited Mar 5 at 0:53 Summer asked Mar 4 at 6:42 Summer Summer 23 6 Is this any help gis.stackexchange.com/questions/220658/… ? if not gis.stackexchange.com/questions/62133/… might help. – Michael Stimson Mar 4 at 6:46 Thanks for answering but when I used gdal_translate, qgis showed that 'Error 4: Kayena.tif: No such file or directory". Would you know how to fi...
Read more

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite I am currently learning reverse engineering and am studying the flags register. I had in my mind that rflags was just another name for one of the 16 general purpose registers, for example rax or rbx . But it looks like rflags is actually an additional register. So that makes 17 registers in total... how many more could there be? I have spent at least an hour on this and found numerous different answers. The best answer so far is this, which says that there are 40 registers in total. 16 General Purpose Registers 2 Status Registers 6 Code Segment Registers 16 SSE Registers 8 FPU/MMX Registers But if I add that up, I get 48. Could anybody provide an official answer on how many registers an x86_64 CPU has (e.g. an Intel i7). Additionally, I have seen references to 'hardware' and 'architectural' registers. What are those registers and how many are there? register x86-64 share | improve this...
Read more