On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> I wonder ... policy says that clean must---*undo* the changes made by
> 'build' and 'binary'---(my emphasis).
>
> So removing all the generated files may not be acceptable if
> different versions of these had been packaged by upstream.
This was
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Matej Vela wrote:
> > Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I was wondering whether Debian policy regarding the 'clean' target
> > > is to be interpreted as applying to the autotools generated files as
> >
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> I was wondering whether Debian policy regarding the 'clean' target
> is to be interpreted as applying to the autotools generated files as
> well. (As currently stated it would appear to be so).
Many of us read the policy for "clean" to "generate a
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Matej Vela wrote:
> Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was wondering whether Debian policy regarding the 'clean' target
> > is to be interpreted as applying to the autotools generated files as
> > well. (As currently stated it would appear to be so).
> >
Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering whether Debian policy regarding the 'clean' target
> is to be interpreted as applying to the autotools generated files as
> well. (As currently stated it would appear to be so).
>
> If so then the following alternate approaches wou
Hello,
I was examining #385980 (grub - clean target does not undo changes).
What is happening here is that the build system is running autotools
(aclocal; automake; autoconf) which are rewriting some of the files
distributed by upstream (which are also autotools generated but by an
older version
6 matches
Mail list logo
