On 2023-11-01 16:39:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > OTOH, it seems somewhat unlikely that maintainer-clean is utilized much in > > extensions. I see it in things like postgis, but that has it's own configure > > etc, even though it also invokes pgxs. > > I thought about this. I don't think this is something that any extension > would use. If they care about the distinction between distclean and > maintainer-clean, are they also doing their own distprep and dist? Seems > unlikely. I mean, if some extension is actually affected, I'm happy to > accommodate, but we can deal with that when we learn about it. Moreover, if > we are moving forward in this direction, we would presumably also like the > extensions to get rid of their distprep step. > > So I think we are ready to move ahead with this patch. There have been some > light complaints earlier in this thread that people wanted to keep some way > to clean only some of the files. But there hasn't been any concrete > follow-up on that, as far as I can see, so I don't know what to do about > that.
+1, let's do this. We can add dedicated target for more specific cases later if we decide we want that.