From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2705 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2009 17:16:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 2695 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2009 17:16:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:16:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n22HGNKC015391; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:16:23 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n22HGMNQ012176; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:16:23 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-185.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.185]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n22HGMTu031167; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:16:22 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3F43B8880CE; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:16:20 -0700 (MST) To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Makefile.in (clean): rm -f $(DEPDIR)/*. References: <20090302001039.161241C7A1E@localhost> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Mon\, 2 Mar 2009 08\:31\:08 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> I don't disagree, but it seems like .deps should be cleared out with a Doug> "make clean" regardless. After a configure the build directory is Doug> clean and .deps is empty (or doesn't exist). For consistency sake, it Doug> makes sense to have the same after a "make clean". Yeah, I agree. In Automake we had a set of rules: if "configure" made it, "distclean" deletes it; if "make" made it, "clean" deletes it; and if the maintainer made it, "maintainer-clean" deletes it. I think I got a little confused here because (IIRC) Automake arranges for configure to make initial .Po files. But, that's because Automake has to work in a much less friendly environment -- it is an implementation detail. I still think we want to also fix this in libcpp, though, because I think it is reasonable to use this style of dependency management, to rename a source file, and to expect a plain "make" to just work. Tom