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