From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A target that's even more bootstrap? Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:21:25 +0300 Message-ID: <835zp1siru.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877e9jf429.fsf@russet.org.uk> <834l4mubi6.fsf@gnu.org> <87muid2a9m.fsf@russet.org.uk> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="124355"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 19 17:23:46 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hdcR6-000WD5-8g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:23:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39354 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdcR5-0000Yl-5d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:23:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41224) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdcP6-0000Ew-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:21:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39406) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdcP5-000880-D1; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:21:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2559 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hdcP4-0006sT-HJ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:21:39 -0400 In-reply-to: <87muid2a9m.fsf@russet.org.uk> (phillip.lord@russet.org.uk) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:237901 Archived-At: > From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:29:41 +0100 > > >> If I understand it, distclean is most severe. So, why not ditch > >> everything other than distclean and clean? > > > > Because the GCS says otherwise? > > The GCS differentiate between "clean" and "mostlyclean" with "may". So, > mostlyclean and clean could be the same. They could do the same, but you asked about ditching them, not about making them do the same. > extraclean isn't required and but could be the same as > maintainer-clean. No, I think they should be separate, if only because maintainer-clean is useful on its own right.