>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Akim Demaille writes:
>> In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
>> instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
>> nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and
>> the like.
Peter> But where does it stop? gcc --clean? ld --clean? touch
Peter> --clean?
As long as these tools create standard output, it is unneeded. But
cc --clean would be cool for some compilers. Have a look at the
exceptions coded into Autoconf:
[for ac_file in `(ls conftest.o conftest.obj; ls conftest.*) 2>/dev/null`; do
case $ac_file in
*.$ac_ext | *.xcoff | *.tds | *.d | *.pdb ) ;;
*) ac_cv_objext=`expr "$ac_file" : '.*\.\(.*\)'`
break;;
esac
done],
Things like .xcoff etc. are not common, and as such, they are a
problems for tools such as Automake. So yes, you may find this funny,
but I'd be happy to have a cc --clean. Call it modular shell
scripting.
In the case of texi2dvi, I personally find that there is no doubt:
automake should not learn to parse Texinfo files. Yet, there are
sometimes *new* files from one release to another, such as *.tmp.
Remember the mess of the distcheck that fails?
