On Friday 31 August 2001 10:42, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Charles Randall wrote:
> > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > >FWIW, we should not remove the config.nice files or certain generated
> > >files (exports.c seems to come to mind) under any circumstances. We
> > >also don't remove build.mk because it is like a Makefile (which we
> > >don't seem to remove).
>
> The Makefiles _are_ removed by make distclean. I don't know why the
> rules.mk isn't.
>
> config.nice should be kept because it possibly represents a lot of
> configuration effort by the user. If they want to overwrite it, fine...
> all they have to do is call ./configure with different parameters. But
> keeping it is a Good Thing IMO. I use it after distcleans and even
> extracleans all the time. It's invaluable.
I was thinking this for the same reason, but I decided I was wrong.
My basic thinking, was that make clean doesn't remove convenience
files, but make distclean and make extraclean should. We have defined
what make distclean and extraclean do. One brings it to a distribution state,
the other brings it to a CVS state.
Ryan
>
> > Hmm. Am I the only one who assumes that "make distclean" is supposed to
> > return the directory structure to the state of distribution?
>
> That's true. Give or take the config.nice thing.
>
> --Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Charlottesville, VA
--
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
