On Wed, 04 May 2005 17:29:08 -0400, H S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Exactly! It is actually quite strange that an obvious option doesn't
> exist to prevent *real* cleaning so that make utility is taken
> advantage of. make-kpkg has been around for quite a while. Surely
> the original author(s) thought about this issue. I wonder if I am
> actually missing something here.
Why does it have to be a make-kpkg option? It is simple enough
to do otherwise. I understand the kitchen sink mentality, but I
really do not want to read my email using make-kpkg (one emacs is
enough).
manoj
--
Beauty is one of the rare things which does not lead to doubt of
God. Jean Anouilh
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
