Re: [PATCH] lib/readline/doc makefiles clean targets

[Chet Ramey]

On 11/1/24 6:20 PM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 01:25:46PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 10/29/24 1:04 PM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
> > > Hi Chet et al.,
> > >
> > > If I run, on devel (4917f285):
> > > - ./configure
> > > - make
> > > - make clean
> > > - git status
> > >
> > > I would expect to see nothing special.
> > > Instead:
> > > a) a whole bunch of files got deleted in lib/readline/doc.
> >
> > Yeah. Those files aren't part of the bash distribution, and so they get
> > cleaned. I left them there the last couple of pushes because I wanted
> > people to get a look at the documentation updates I made. It was easier
> > for me than splitting the files between the bash and readline devel
> > branches.
>
> Ok, i see.
> Sort of a problem is, that these files aren't explicitly made by make.

They are. Unless you mean the intermediate files created by running tex
to make the dvi files.


> According to info (make)Standard Targets, we should have:
>         mostlyclean < clean < distclean < maintainer-clean

That hierarchy isn't gospel. The current Makefile rules are fine.

> (One could argue, whether the devel branch is a distribution.)

It's not. It's a snapshot of ongoing work.


> Would you accept patches for:
>         a) reversing mostlyclean/clean;
>         b) rewrite mostlyclean/clean/distclean as described;
>         c) rewrite maintainer-clean so that it reuses the other clean-targets.

I can make the appropriate changes, you don't need to send patches.

> I guess that config.h, buildconf.h etc. - products of running configure
> or config.status - are 'files recording the configuration'.
> Thus should be exempt from 'make clean mostlyclean'.

They already are.


--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature