Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Sunday 02 September 2001 01:22, Greg Stein wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:16:15PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Friday 31 August 2001 19:31, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:30 PM On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... exports.c shouldn't be cleaned, correct, because it is a part of the distribution, or at least it should be if it isn't already. config.nice is not a part of the distribution however, and should be removed by make distclean. -1 on *any* form of clean that tosses config.nice That holds *my* information about how I repeatedly configure Apache. That is a file that I use, and is outside of the scope of the config/build/whatever processes. Its entire existence is to retain the information. Cleaning it is not right. What are you talking about? We are talking about cleaning for packaging to _other_ computers, not yours. That's what rbb is speaking of by 'distclean', clean enough for redistribution. Exactly. The whole point and definition of make distclean, is that it cleans things to the point that it could be redistributed to another machine. If you are just trying to clean the directory, then make clean is what you want. If make clean doesn't remove enough for you, then something else is wrong. I use distclean on my computer all the time. Along with extraclean. Neither of those targets should toss config.nice. *That* is what I mean. To be clear: nothing in our build/config/whatever should remove config.nice Clean rules are about cleaning out state that might affect a build in some way. So we toss object files, generate makefiles, the configure script, whatever. But config.nice doesn't fall into that camp because it is not a stateful file. It is for the user to rebuild what they had before. Just to point out, Apache 1.3 had config.status which is analogous to 2.0's config.nice. It turns out that make distclean in 1.3 removes config.status. I would say this is proof that we should be removing config.nice with 2.0. Ryan __ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Sunday 02 September 2001 01:22, Greg Stein wrote: ... I use distclean on my computer all the time. Along with extraclean. Neither of those targets should toss config.nice. *That* is what I mean. To be clear: nothing in our build/config/whatever should remove config.nice Clean rules are about cleaning out state that might affect a build in some way. So we toss object files, generate makefiles, the configure script, whatever. But config.nice doesn't fall into that camp because it is not a stateful file. It is for the user to rebuild what they had before. Just to point out, Apache 1.3 had config.status which is analogous to 2.0's config.nice. It turns out that make distclean in 1.3 removes config.status. I would say this is proof that we should be removing config.nice with 2.0. That isn't proof, that is an opinion -- that you happen to like what was done in 1.3. I see it as 1.3 attempted to look like ./configure and create a config.status, and along those lines it torched config.status. But in Apache 2.0, we have a *real* config.status which gets tossed because it is stateful and you should be tossing it. config.nice is for the user to retain the information about how to reconfigure their Apache after a thorough cleaning. It contains no state that could mess up a future config and build. And it retains *very* useful information for the user. The only thing that tossing config.nice will do is inconvenience our users. What is the point in that? I'm for helping users, not pissing them off. How many more times do I need to say this, Ryan? Here is number three: -1 on removing config.nice. Drop it already. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 02:01:15PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Sunday 02 September 2001 10:28, Jim Winstead wrote: ... it may be worth following the gnu project's lead on these targets, since they use the same names. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55 (for them, distclean == what is in the tarball.) +1. If we are going to use their syntax, we should also use their semantics. I will check with some other packages later today to see what they do with make distclean. Few projects have a file like config.nice, so it doesn't apply. Don't sweat your time. I've explained my reasons, Cliff and Justin seem to agree quite wholeheartedly. And I'll repeat: -1 on anything rm'ing config.nice Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:16:15PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Friday 31 August 2001 19:31, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:30 PM On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 03:02:32PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: ... exports.c shouldn't be cleaned, correct, because it is a part of the distribution, or at least it should be if it isn't already. config.nice is not a part of the distribution however, and should be removed by make distclean. -1 on *any* form of clean that tosses config.nice That holds *my* information about how I repeatedly configure Apache. That is a file that I use, and is outside of the scope of the config/build/whatever processes. Its entire existence is to retain the information. Cleaning it is not right. What are you talking about? We are talking about cleaning for packaging to _other_ computers, not yours. That's what rbb is speaking of by 'distclean', clean enough for redistribution. Exactly. The whole point and definition of make distclean, is that it cleans things to the point that it could be redistributed to another machine. If you are just trying to clean the directory, then make clean is what you want. If make clean doesn't remove enough for you, then something else is wrong. I use distclean on my computer all the time. Along with extraclean. Neither of those targets should toss config.nice. *That* is what I mean. To be clear: nothing in our build/config/whatever should remove config.nice Clean rules are about cleaning out state that might affect a build in some way. So we toss object files, generate makefiles, the configure script, whatever. But config.nice doesn't fall into that camp because it is not a stateful file. It is for the user to rebuild what they had before. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:25:07PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Which means it has nothing to do with cleaning the tree to a distribution state (or state 'ready for distribution'.) See, I think that's the difference of interpretation here. *I* interpret distclean to mean not ready for distribution but back to essentially the way it was when I unpacked the distribution. The difference being that I'd be irritated as hell if I lost my configuration information which has no impact on the state of the build environment, as opposed to the Makefiles and so on which do affect the state. If I make distclean, it means I want to start over again with the first step out of the tarball, namely configure. It doesn't mean I want to lose the options I passed to configure. it may be worth following the gnu project's lead on these targets, since they use the same names. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55 (for them, distclean == what is in the tarball.) jim
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Sunday 02 September 2001 10:28, Jim Winstead wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 01:25:07PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Which means it has nothing to do with cleaning the tree to a distribution state (or state 'ready for distribution'.) See, I think that's the difference of interpretation here. *I* interpret distclean to mean not ready for distribution but back to essentially the way it was when I unpacked the distribution. The difference being that I'd be irritated as hell if I lost my configuration information which has no impact on the state of the build environment, as opposed to the Makefiles and so on which do affect the state. If I make distclean, it means I want to start over again with the first step out of the tarball, namely configure. It doesn't mean I want to lose the options I passed to configure. it may be worth following the gnu project's lead on these targets, since they use the same names. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55 (for them, distclean == what is in the tarball.) +1. If we are going to use their syntax, we should also use their semantics. I will check with some other packages later today to see what they do with make distclean. Ryan __ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
RE: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] FWIW, we should not remove the config.nice files or certain generated files (exports.c seems to come to mind) under any circumstances. We also don't remove build.mk because it is like a Makefile (which we don't seem to remove). Hmm. Am I the only one who assumes that make distclean is supposed to return the directory structure to the state of distribution? Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Charles
RE: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Charles Randall wrote: From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] FWIW, we should not remove the config.nice files or certain generated files (exports.c seems to come to mind) under any circumstances. We also don't remove build.mk because it is like a Makefile (which we don't seem to remove). The Makefiles _are_ removed by make distclean. I don't know why the rules.mk isn't. config.nice should be kept because it possibly represents a lot of configuration effort by the user. If they want to overwrite it, fine... all they have to do is call ./configure with different parameters. But keeping it is a Good Thing IMO. I use it after distcleans and even extracleans all the time. It's invaluable. Hmm. Am I the only one who assumes that make distclean is supposed to return the directory structure to the state of distribution? That's true. Give or take the config.nice thing. --Cliff -- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:38:39AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: On Friday 31 August 2001 10:31, Charles Randall wrote: From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] FWIW, we should not remove the config.nice files or certain generated files (exports.c seems to come to mind) under any circumstances. We also don't remove build.mk because it is like a Makefile (which we don't seem to remove). Hmm. Am I the only one who assumes that make distclean is supposed to return the directory structure to the state of distribution? Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Make distclean should definately clean to a distribution state. If it doesn't, then it is broken. Make clean should be used to clean everything except the types of files mentioned above. I think the point is that there are some files that can be generated that shouldn't be cleaned. We don't want to remove config.nice for sure and we probably don't want to remove exports.c as it never changes. As gstein has pointed out, exports.c should be created by the roll script because it is only dependent on the .c files in the tree. All of that said, I am sure that there are some files that we do need to clean up that we aren't doing now. -- justin
Re: [PATCH] RE: make distclean doesn't
On Friday 31 August 2001 10:42, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Charles Randall wrote: From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] FWIW, we should not remove the config.nice files or certain generated files (exports.c seems to come to mind) under any circumstances. We also don't remove build.mk because it is like a Makefile (which we don't seem to remove). The Makefiles _are_ removed by make distclean. I don't know why the rules.mk isn't. config.nice should be kept because it possibly represents a lot of configuration effort by the user. If they want to overwrite it, fine... all they have to do is call ./configure with different parameters. But keeping it is a Good Thing IMO. I use it after distcleans and even extracleans all the time. It's invaluable. I was thinking this for the same reason, but I decided I was wrong. My basic thinking, was that make clean doesn't remove convenience files, but make distclean and make extraclean should. We have defined what make distclean and extraclean do. One brings it to a distribution state, the other brings it to a CVS state. Ryan Hmm. Am I the only one who assumes that make distclean is supposed to return the directory structure to the state of distribution? That's true. Give or take the config.nice thing. --Cliff -- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA -- __ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
