Re: [RFA] Clean up intl/ in distclean

Re: [RFA] Clean up intl/ in distclean

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:59:00AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> intl/ leaves behind stamp-h, config.cache, and config.status after a 'make
> distclean'; this patch removes them.  OK to commit this, and get them out of
> binutils release tarballs - or do patches to intl/ go somewhere else first? 
> The MAINTAINERS entry is not exactly clear.

I'll pursue where this patch should go, but for now I'm committing it
on the release branch.  I have some precedent; I see that it was in a
not-so-recent GDB release branch.

I'm also putting it on the GDB 5.2 branch, at Andrew's request, since
the request arrived while I was typing this :)  Andrew, I won't close
the PR till we figure out how this goes on the trunk.


> 2002-03-08  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>
> 
> 	* Makefile.in (distclean): Remove config.cache, stamp-h, and
> 	config.status.
> 
> Index: Makefile.in
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/intl/Makefile.in,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -u -p -r1.2 Makefile.in
> --- Makefile.in	2001/11/29 03:20:34	1.2
> +++ Makefile.in	2002/03/08 16:53:15
> @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ clean: mostlyclean
>  
>  distclean: clean
>  	rm -f Makefile ID TAGS po2msg.sed po2tbl.sed libintl.h config.log
> +	rm -f config.cache stamp-h config.status
>  
>  maintainer-clean: distclean
>  	@echo "This command is intended for maintainers to use;"
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [RFA] Clean up intl/ in distclean

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 02:09:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:59:00AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > intl/ leaves behind stamp-h, config.cache, and config.status after a 'make
> > distclean'; this patch removes them.  OK to commit this, and get them out of
> > binutils release tarballs - or do patches to intl/ go somewhere else first? 
> > The MAINTAINERS entry is not exactly clear.
> 
> I'll pursue where this patch should go, but for now I'm committing it
> on the release branch.  I have some precedent; I see that it was in a
> not-so-recent GDB release branch.
> 
> I'm also putting it on the GDB 5.2 branch, at Andrew's request, since
> the request arrived while I was typing this :)  Andrew, I won't close
> the PR till we figure out how this goes on the trunk.

This one too; don't know how I missed it the first time...


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/intl/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.4.2.1
diff -u -p -r1.4.2.1 ChangeLog
--- ChangeLog	2002/03/08 19:08:10	1.4.2.1
+++ ChangeLog	2002/03/08 19:26:56
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 2002-03-08  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>
 
+	* Makefile.in (distclean): Remove config.h.
+
+2002-03-08  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>
+
 	* Makefile.in (distclean): Remove config.cache, stamp-h, and
 	config.status.
 
Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/intl/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.2.2.1
diff -u -p -r1.2.2.1 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	2002/03/08 19:08:10	1.2.2.1
+++ Makefile.in	2002/03/08 19:26:56
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ clean: mostlyclean
 
 distclean: clean
 	rm -f Makefile ID TAGS po2msg.sed po2tbl.sed libintl.h config.log
-	rm -f config.cache stamp-h config.status
+	rm -f config.cache stamp-h config.status config.h
 
 maintainer-clean: distclean
 	@echo "This command is intended for maintainers to use;"

Re: [RFA] Clean up intl/ in distclean

[Andrew Cagney]

> intl/ leaves behind stamp-h, config.cache, and config.status after a 'make
> distclean'; this patch removes them.  OK to commit this, and get them out of
> binutils release tarballs - or do patches to intl/ go somewhere else first? 
> The MAINTAINERS entry is not exactly clear.

Hmm, can you pull this into the GDB 5.2 branch as well?  (and close 
gdb/394 :-)

Andrew