From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A target that's even more bootstrap? Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:27:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: <837e9iubyp.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0japujz.fsf@telefonica.net> <87v9x1oib6.fsf@telefonica.net> <831rzpsi5f.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9x1r2y5.fsf@gnu.org> <83imt1qzhr.fsf@gnu.org> <83ef3pqvzs.fsf@gnu.org> <835zp0quc8.fsf@gnu.org> <83y31wp6oj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="60858"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 20 18:58:25 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 1he0OH-000Ffn-79 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:58:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50434 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1he0OE-00084D-6u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:58:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41711) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1he06v-0004PI-HV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:40:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdzub-0007Tw-8B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:45034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdzub-0007SA-1A; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:27:45 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hdzuX-0000Cg-1g; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:27:43 +0200 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAD1BMVEU1FE1lOW4mCUNMJVul brQHWCMmAAACTUlEQVQ4jW1TgZHcIAwUKAWAoQAsUoBALiB83H9NWWH/z/9MfDe2T4tW0q6ORr7/ exHl91q1/gA0lJLHg/0AEuWSrWSA40l57hSIQzJDvNgTyvfCC7EZ45MGECdzcO3izGTEiUdJT4d1 5V2cVAfhEQrp8ON1pxFrSKxEod7KuK1cX6rESRMFZ1atfh5kpRKKJCJwrOtePLIDaGOQNH0G8Iop uAQZI2dqhV+58rxWGEXHloBODS+QhG9oYJjWAZ/vAY4GxmJzZLvTRZb0BWb3UoFZeSUGFTtrwRjk wB+0OWoy6sxp+ID3ehL5CBY0UwiNVSg2y5/NZar5ovOMGkmjSAtb9r+qNgBYU5LhgEjgzRWNc6UZ 24TuG2i7/MdJGI0odpSWndK2UuuwHAvNroyQkQPjtbvA8aQqOK1O1lJ1O/52SkI8teEw776yRYy/ ODahc3JwYGeYMqosamjotP4LIUYDMK1dXsRGxH5EU2/0ufhxcBxwUFr8isNj12Wpj8Ei34CtWKIR /ZB85/IUuIhyetpnTkMDcG1hDSY6O7tPCCQ6xJDWOgPg8K0MMFZsgffegnKc7YmCgAEVvEdh+IS9 a5sq4hnKwDvssckkcVPBY6GwclIf0BU/eUZIJ/hikY0mYYbC1/wt28N9XUtlQnap+COf9zGfcBTs L5hbipy9tERtUzqEC4mQARP42QQsiYVa3DT4RFF7cE2E2vlRuRRpPfEBOdHT8VmY9p19GPIf7Qm/ 1aXNeU4faZ+L7avdnmaf2OboLQJo0RkxZj9A8w/nDo/m8ZWbrQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== In-Reply-To: <83y31wp6oj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2019 19:23:08 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.231.51 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:237978 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Yes, indeed. If I remove both configure and src/config.in in >> extraclean, the subsequent "make" works fine. > > OK, so that's the solution, right? Yup. >> >> +./info >> >> +./lib/sys >> >> >> >> perhaps don't matter, and I'd rather not do an rm -rf on a directory... >> > >> > Are these directories empty? >> >> They will normally be empty, but the user may have put a file there... >> >> I could do check for whether they're empty, and if they are, I do an >> rmdir on them? > > I don't think you need to do that, as their mere existence shouldn't > matter for this purpose. (If it does, someone will complain and will > describe the situation when it does matter.) I've already checked in a solution where it checks for the directory and deletes it... However, I'm not sure whether the solution works everywhere. It's: [ -d info ] && rmdir --ignore-fail-on-non-empty info If that's non-supported syntax, we can just delete the line and let the directory live on. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no