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]