Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Benoit,

Please limit followups to this message to *ONE* group only, except as
noted below, for simplicity let's say <address@hidden> as this is
where things started off.  I've already thrown out a couple of lists.

* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:42:09PM CET:
> 
> Here is a first patch proposal that adds a --clean option to autoreconf,
> autoconf, autoheader, aclocal, automake and libtoolize.

> I don't know if I was meant to send this mail to the <project>-patches 
> mailing lists

Yes, please.  And please make it one patch per message, each to its
list, no cross posting.  Let's not discuss patches here: casual readers
should not carry the burden of getting patch nitpicking noise.

> There is more work to be done: filling ChangeLog/NEWS entries, 
> documenting this in manuals, supporting autopoint and maybe some other
> auto<stuff> I might have omitted, and most important I think: adding
> tests (new feature = new bugs => new tests).

Yes.  Will you write all or some of this as well?  Further, we need
copyright assignment from you; I'll contact you off-list about this.

> Also I noticed that there is one thing that remains after a autoreconf 
> --clean: the autom4te.cache directory. But I don't quite know at which
> stage and which tool ought to remove it.

Not sure either.  Probably either not at all, or either tool which
directly or indirectly invokes autom4te should invoke `autom4te
--clean', but it would be good if autoreconf took care to invoke it
at most once (with the last command, for efficiency, and not if the
cache is not package-local!).  I like the idea not to put this in a
Makefile rule: the tools are where the information is at, and also
we don't run into nasty rebuilding issues due to a recursive `make'
instance missing files already cleaned.

Patches don't look so bad at first sight, a couple of nits below
that haven't been addressed yet.

You may want to note (or prevent) that using `autoreconf --clean' on
the packages Automake and Libtool themselves will leave them in an
undesirable state (because in those packages, some of the files you
remove are native).  Similar may hold for Autoconf and eventually
Gettext.

[ autoreconf.in ]
> +# &run_make ([TARGET])
> +# ------------

Please align underlining with the line above it.  ;-)

> --- libtool/libtoolize.m4sh   9 Mar 2007 15:08:43 -0000       1.60
> +++ libtool/libtoolize.m4sh   19 Mar 2007 21:04:29 -0000
[...]
> @@ -729,6 +735,12 @@

> +    if $opt_clean; then
> +      rm -f "$my_destfile"
> +      my_return_status=$?

At least with --dry-run, it would be helpful to see what's being removed
here.  Probably also without it.  Not sure if similar holds for some of
the other tools.

Cheers, and thanks much for your efforts,
Ralf