On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Sunday 02 September 2001 01:22, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > I use distclean on my computer all the time. Along with extraclean. Neither
> > of those targets should toss config.nice. *That* is what I mean.
> >
> > To be clear: nothing in our build/config/whatever should remove config.nice
> >
> >
> > "Clean" rules are about cleaning out state that might affect a build in
> > some way. So we toss object files, generate makefiles, the configure
> > script, whatever. But config.nice doesn't fall into that camp because it is
> > not a "stateful" file. It is for the user to rebuild what they had before.
>
> Just to point out, Apache 1.3 had config.status which is analogous to 2.0's
> config.nice. It turns out that make distclean in 1.3 removes config.status.
>
> I would say this is proof that we should be removing config.nice with 2.0.
That isn't proof, that is an opinion -- that you happen to like what was
done in 1.3. I see it as 1.3 attempted to look like ./configure and create a
config.status, and along those lines it torched config.status.
But in Apache 2.0, we have a *real* config.status which gets tossed because
it is stateful and you should be tossing it. config.nice is for the user to
retain the information about how to reconfigure their Apache after a
thorough cleaning. It contains no state that could mess up a future config
and build. And it retains *very* useful information for the user.
The only thing that tossing config.nice will do is inconvenience our users.
What is the point in that? I'm for helping users, not pissing them off.
How many more times do I need to say this, Ryan? Here is number three: -1 on
removing config.nice. Drop it already.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
