Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Benoit Sigoure wrote: > Quoting Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Not knowing the guts of this, my only complaint has to do >> with the help text for ``--clean'' and the lack of consistency >> WRT ``-c'' being an acceptable alias for it. >> > > Yeah you're right, the message should be consiste

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Quoting Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Not knowing the guts of this, my only complaint has to do with the help text for ``--clean'' and the lack of consistency WRT ``-c'' being an acceptable alias for it. Yeah you're right, the message should be consistent in the different programs. What abo

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello Benoit, Please limit followups to this message to *ONE* group only, except as noted below, for simplicity let's say as this is where things started off. I've already thrown out a couple of lists. * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:42:09PM CET: > > Here is a first patch pro

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Not knowing the guts of this, my only complaint has to do with the help text for ``--clean'' and the lack of consistency WRT ``-c'' being an acceptable alias for it. Benoit Sigoure wrote: > Index: autoconf/bin/autoconf.as > === > RCS

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Quoting Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hello everyone, First, please be aware of another thread discussing a similar topic: * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:39:32PM CET: In a first time, I'm trying to

Re: [Autogen-users] Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello Bruce and all. [Omitting autogen-users, I'll send a patch submission there in a separate mail.] I started this thread with an unfortunate mail. Allow me to my current understanding of situation. On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:00:05AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > [...] "maintainer-clean" seman

Re: [Autogen-users] Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hi Ralf, I've followed some of this thread. From my perspective: * I'm okay what whatever is decided, as long as "maintainer-clean" semantics do not change. New semantics -> new name, just like the way any other interface change should work * I don't particularly care for the "autogen.sh"

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello everyone, First, please be aware of another thread discussing a similar topic: * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:39:32PM CET: > > Same thing here. Actually I discovered last year, by reading the GNU Coding

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Quoting Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: In the course of the preceding year or two, whenever I heard about mainatiner-clean, it was misinterpreted this way. (That's why I reacted so hysterically when I saw your hint on the automake list.) Same thing here. Actually I discovered last year, by

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello Bob, On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 10:44:42AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > First off let me say that I was perfectly aware of the standards for > make maintainer-clean when I posted my response to that message. > There is no standard target to perform the desired operation. That > poster had a very

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello Stepan, Apologies to all for continuing the large crossposting. I am not subscribed to those lists. Stepan Kasal wrote: > For details, see my post here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2007-03/msg00043.html > > But people tend to guess that this target must be the opposite to

Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 14:38 +0100, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello, > Another example: when I submitted a patch that removed Makefile.in > from MAINTAINERCLEANFILES to HAL, I got told that using > `maintainer-clean' to delete everything generated by autotools has > become a ``common practice'': > http

Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

Hello, the standards define `maintainer-clean' as a target which is only a slightly different from distclean. Besides files cleaned by distclean, it delets *.c files generated by bison, manual pages generated by latex2man, etc. For details, see my post here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/au