* 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
@ 2008-04-12 12:00 Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-pretest-bug
Hello!
This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed. Is
this a bug or is there a target that deletes superfluous DOC files?
--
Greetings
Pete
Some day we may discover how to make magnets that can point in any
direction.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 12:00 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200
> Cc:
>
> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed.
I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug
Am 12.04.2008 um 15:10 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
>> From: Peter Dyballa
>> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200
>> Cc:
>>
>> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
>> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed.
>
> I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
> previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
> it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
Not when I install or make clean. The installed Emacs wants etc/DOC-$
{version}.<highest buildnumber>, the cleaned (deleted) Emacs cannot
want anything.
--
Greetings
Pete
$ sumascii BILL GATES
B I L L G A T E S
66+ 73+ 76+ 76+ 71+ 65+ 84+ 69+ 83 = 663
and add 3 because he's Bill Gates the third.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter Dyballa
On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
>> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200
>> Cc:
>>
>> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
>> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed.
>
> I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
> previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
> it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'.
I had already reported that inconsistency some months before, see my
message in [1] and Glenn's reply in [2].
Sven
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-07/msg01778.html
[2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-08/msg00004.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug
> Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:14:20 +0200
>
> > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
> > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
> > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
>
>
> Not when I install or make clean. The installed Emacs wants etc/DOC-$
> {version}.<highest buildnumber>, the cleaned (deleted) Emacs cannot
> want anything.
It used to be the case that the built binary was installed under 2
different names: `emacs' and `emacs-${version}.buildnumber', which
were both hard links to the same file. Deleting `emacs' would then
leave the other one around, and when invoked, it would want the DOC
file with the corresponding suffix. Is this no longer the case? That
is, does installing a new version completely erases the old one?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim
@ 2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa
> From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
> Cc: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:32:32 +0200
>
> On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200
> >> Cc:
> >>
> >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
> >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed.
> >
> > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
> > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
> > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
>
> That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'.
Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking
about files in the build directory or in the install directory?
("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.)
If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the
previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the
build number NOT to be incremented anyway?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier
2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa
1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Sven Joachim @ 2008-04-12 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa
On 2008-04-12 19:24 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
>> Cc: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:32:32 +0200
>>
>> On 2008-04-12 15:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>> >> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
>> >> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:23 +0200
>> >> Cc:
>> >>
>> >> This file is not deleted by 'make clean', so upon a new build its
>> >> number is incremented and more and more DOC files get installed.
>> >
>> > I think this is intended, as you still have the Emacs binary from the
>> > previous build (emacs-${version}.buildnumber) around, and could use
>> > it, e.g., for comparison or some other purpose.
>>
>> That's not true, the Emacs binaries are all deleted by `make clean'.
>
> Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking
> about files in the build directory or in the install directory?
The build directory.
> ("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.)
Of course.
> If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the
> previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the
> build number NOT to be incremented anyway?
I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs*
binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then
useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number
to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean?
Sven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
@ 2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Sven Joachim
Am 12.04.2008 um 19:24 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> Maybe I completely misunderstand the issue at hand: are we talking
> about files in the build directory or in the install directory?
> ("make clean" is relevant to the former, not the latter.)
About both. Because the DOC files in the build tree are also installed.
>
> If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the
> previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the
> build number NOT to be incremented anyway?
I want to have control over this mechanism. Usually I want to have
only one build number version (and I don't want to waste time by re-
configuring again after a 'make distclean' or such). Because when it
happens that I start over, none of the installed superfluous DOC
files and Emacs versions are de-installed. This worked until some day
in winter, in February, I think. Then the etc/DOC-$
{version}.buildnumber<s> files were saved and new ones with
incremented build numbers were created, and sometimes also installed
when I did not pay attention. This seems to have changed recently (I
am still waiting for a 'make bootstrap' to finish) ...
--
Greetings
Pete
Behold the warranty ... the bold print giveth and the fine print
taketh away.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
@ 2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa
> From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
> Cc: Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:54:11 +0200
>
> > If Peter and you are talking about the build directory, then the
> > previous DOC should probably be removed, but do we really want the
> > build number NOT to be incremented anyway?
>
> I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs*
> binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then
> useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number
> to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean?
I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make
clean".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Sven Joachim
Am 12.04.2008 um 20:57 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make
> clean".
Why?
--
Greetings
Pete
Make it simple, as simple as possible but no simpler.
– Albert Einstein
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2008-04-12 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sven Joachim; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Peter_Dyballa
> I'm not certain I understand that; make clean removes all the emacs*
> binaries from the build tree and therefore should also remove the then
> useless DOC-* files. It probably makes sense to reset the build number
> to 1 after that, doesn't it? Or what do you mean?
Yes, that makes sense.
Note that nowadays it's not even clear there's much point in having
DOC-<vers>: we could just use a single DOC file: Emacs is able to
gracefully react to a DOC file that has been changed.
I've been using such a setup for several years now, and occasionally it
fails to notice that the file has changed and ends up showing some other
docstring than the one intended, but this is rather rare (it happened to
me recently and I felt like "Wow, so the practice does agree with the
theory after all").
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug
Am 12.04.2008 um 18:43 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> It used to be the case that the built binary was installed under 2
> different names: `emacs' and `emacs-${version}.buildnumber', which
> were both hard links to the same file. Deleting `emacs' would then
> leave the other one around, and when invoked, it would want the DOC
> file with the corresponding suffix. Is this no longer the case?
This is still the case.
> That is, does installing a new version completely erases the old one?
Yes.
I made an experiment. Around noon I made clean and then updated from
CVS, finally made bootstrap. Since etc/DOC-23.0.60.1 was not removed
(with both src/emacs and src/emacs-23.0.60.1) I complained, because
in the weeks ago it happened that, when this DOC file survived
deletion, a new one was created with the buildnumber increased by one
either by make or by 'make bootstrap', which was then installed
together with etc/emacs-${version}.buildnumber. (The weather was so
fine and sunny that I stopped seeing a sense in deleting the file by
hand.)
After 'make bootstrap' and then 'make clean' these files existed:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2245430 7 Apr 00:42 /usr/local/share/
emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 14:58 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
I re-compiled with a simple make and decided to install. Then these
files existed:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 /usr/local/share/
emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 etc/DOC
-rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
That's really bad! This isn't the same I encountered before a few
times! Did someone fix the bug? Or was I doing the wrong thing? So I
decided to 'make clean' and 'make bootstrap' again. After more than
an hour these files now exist:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 2243354 12 Apr 20:07 /usr/local/share/
emacs/23.0.60/etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 21:29 etc/DOC
-rw-r--r-- 1 pete admin 2243354 12 Apr 21:29 etc/DOC-23.0.60.1
So it seems that the case is now solved! Although etc/DOC-$
{version}.buildnumber is left and etc/DOC is removed, it does not
happen any more that etc/DOC-${version}.<buildnumber + 1> is built,
and later potentially installed. My complaint came too late ... Sorry!
--
Greetings
Pete
For some reason, this fortune reminds everyone of Marvin Zelkowitz.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-12 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac
> Cc: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>,
> emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:00:37 +0200
>
>
> Am 12.04.2008 um 20:57 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> > I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make
> > clean".
>
> Why?
It's a new build, isn't it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-04-12 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Peter_Dyballa, Sven Joachim
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> I meant that perhaps the build number should grow even after "make
> clean".
Yes, it should, unless "make clean" reverts all the source changes
that might affect DOC. That "cleaned" build might very well have been
installed to preserve it for later comparisons. Then it is very
useful to have a convenient unique identifier for each build.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac
Am 12.04.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> It's a new build, isn't it?
But from a new and different source code base.
--
Greetings
Pete
These are my principles and if you don't like them... well, I have
others.
- Groucho Marx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
@ 2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-12 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen J. Turnbull; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Sven Joachim
Am 12.04.2008 um 22:49 schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Then it is very useful to have a convenient unique identifier for
> each build.
GNU Emacs has this information when you start to send a bug report.
Upon configuration some files are overwritten. Upon 'make bootstrap'
some more files are overwritten even twice. Upon 'make install' all
files (hopefully) are overwritten. Isn't that already enough uniqueness?
--
Greetings
Pete
To most people solutions mean finding the answers. But to chemists
solutions
are things that are still all mixed up.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-04-12 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, Eli Zaretskii, Sven Joachim
Peter Dyballa writes:
>
> Am 12.04.2008 um 22:49 schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull:
> > Then it is very useful to have a convenient unique identifier for
> > each build.
>
> GNU Emacs has this information when you start to send a bug report.
>
>
> Upon configuration some files are overwritten. Upon 'make bootstrap'
> some more files are overwritten even twice. Upon 'make install' all
> files (hopefully) are overwritten. Isn't that already enough uniqueness?
No. Because the files are overwritten, you cannot determine whether
the builds are the same or not.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-13 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac
> Cc: svenjoac@gmx.de,
> emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:59:26 +0200
>
>
> Am 12.04.2008 um 22:30 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
> > It's a new build, isn't it?
>
>
> But from a new and different source code base.
No, "make clean" by itself doesn't change the sources.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-04-13 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac
Am 13.04.2008 um 05:18 schrieb Eli Zaretskii:
>> ut from a new and different source code base.
>
> No, "make clean" by itself doesn't change the sources.
Right, it's me who prepares with a 'make clean' the CVS update to
enter a new state. I want to have clean basis before I enter a new
cycle. And I don't care what number this cycle has (reaching 100
after one year?).
Anyway, 'make clean' expresses something like: "make way for
something new." This new does not necessarily depend on new input,
like my apartment is still the same when I have swept away all the
debris that fell down from my body and clothes etc. This 'make clean'
makes place for something new. If I want to have some counter
incremented I could 'make increment.'
When I make clean I don't want my rent be incremented.
--
Greetings
Pete
~ o
~_\\_/\
~ O O
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber
2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2008-04-13 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: emacs-pretest-bug, svenjoac
> Cc: svenjoac@gmx.de,
> emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE>
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:38:08 +0200
>
> Anyway, 'make clean' expresses something like: "make way for
> something new."
That's not my interpretation of "make clean". It just means "return
to the state we had before configure+make". Also, I don't think "make
clean" was designed for anything close to the situation where the
files are updated en masse from a VCS. Sounds like you want something
like "make cvs-clean" or some such.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-04-13 14:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-04-12 12:00 23.0.60; etc/DOC-${version}.buildnumber Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 13:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 15:14 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:41 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 16:32 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 17:54 ` Sven Joachim
2008-04-12 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 19:00 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 20:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 20:59 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-13 3:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-13 8:38 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2008-04-12 20:49 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-04-12 21:04 ` Peter Dyballa
2008-04-12 23:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2008-04-12 19:21 ` Stefan Monnier
2008-04-12 18:55 ` Peter Dyballa
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.