Is there a conventional choice for a different file-extension given to source files prepared for \input (i.e. containing LateX source, but not something you can process on its own)?
The context here is automatically packing up selected files (including documentation written in LaTeX) from a medium-sized software project for sharing with a third-party.
I run a test build on the software that automatically identifies source files and this has saved me from shipping incomplete packages already.
Now I find that I have to include much more documentation than I was previosuly shipping and I'd like to test-build this as well. But simple file-name (DOC_SOURCES!=ls *.tex) globbing picks up the \input files as well as the master files. So currently I've hand-tooled the test-build, but that is fragile.
This is solvable if I give the \input files a different extension. (Alas .texi is already used by tex-info files.)
I noticed the flatex tool and could do something like that as an alternative (my users don't need to code organized for convenient editting, afterall), but my fellow developer might not appreciate my adding a tools to the required build environment that they can't get from the package manager...
\includerequires that the argument has no extension and called file must have extension.tex. – egreg Sep 17 '19 at 20:04\input. Thanks. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Sep 17 '19 at 20:06\input; if you don't provide one,.texis implied. – egreg Sep 17 '19 at 20:08