>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> Am 09 Aug 2001 11:40:06 +0200 schrieb Akim Demaille:
>> >>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Ralf> Though I agree that it would be desirable to let autoconf do
Ralf> this cleanup, I fail to see how autoconf could do this job.
>> I thought several times about the fact that some clean up targets
>> should not be handled by the Makefile itself, but by the tool which
>> created them.
>>
>> Here, we should have something equivalent.
Ralf> May-be it's absurd, may-be it's an insight, may-be it's just
Ralf> rewording your thought: config.status --clean ?
It is neither, it's the prolongation of the same idea :)
autom4te.cache is really a maintainer byproduct, it is created by
autom4te, itself run by autoconf, autoheader, etc. so I was referring
to autoconf --clean.
But I agree distclean could happily use config.status this way!
