Am Freitag, 23. Dezember 2011, 20:17:13 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:41:07AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> The suggestion that "git clean" be a solution appears to have caused > >> some level of outrage. However, at least for '3.0 (git)', all the > >> sources are known to git, and 'git clean' is a reliable and simple > >> solution to the problem. The alternative, manually reverting all > >> the changes, is both complex and error-prone. I'm not sure I see the > >> problem with what is an obvious improvement to the process. > > > > I'd favor a solution that avoids having to fix hundres, or thousands, > > of upstream packages. For example, instead of building directly in > > the working tree, we could export the sources to a temporary directory > > and build there. Voila: no build artifacts to clean up at all. > > That sucks nearly as much as packages that unpack a upstream.tar.gz for > every build. It makes editing the source, running "make" till it works > and then building a new package a problem. > > What can usualy be done quite easily is out-of-tree builds. Pretty much > the same effect with less inconvenience.
And just as much work, actually. With e.g. autotools, there is a surprising possibility to not be done right by upstream. HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201112232303.17622.p...@hendrik-sattler.de
