Re: adding bootstrap and bootstrap.conf

[Jim Meyering]

address@hidden (Karl Berry) wrote:
>     The only reason maintainer-clean typically has not removed files like
>     configure and Makefile.am is that they have been (until relatively
>     recently) version controlled.
>
> That doesn't seem quite right to me.  Makefile.am is typically

Whoops.  Thanks.
Of course, I don't mean Makefile.am, in spite of the number
of times I wrote it.  Only files created as part of ./bootstrap,
configure, make, etc. operations should be remove by "make maintainer-clean".

> version-controlled and always has been; furthermore, configure is nearly
> always a generated file and may or may not be version-controlled by design.
> As far as I can see, the issue isn't version control of a given file but
> whether a provided "maintainer tool" can reinstate it.

Exactly.

> In general, I agree it would seem desirable for maintainer-clean to
> delete everything which the package's bootstrap script (if any) can
> recreate, now that bootstrap scripts are in common use.  But we must
> recognize that not all packages (I venture to say the vast majority, in
> fact) use your particular fancy bootstrap script.
>
> So it seems to me the rule shouldn't be "always delete configure and
> Makefile.am", but rather "delete everything which is recreated by a
> maintainer bootstrapping the package".  If there is no bootstrap script
> at all, the current definition of maintainer-clean would apply.
>
> This could be implemented by options to automake/autoconf/gnulib-tool, I
> guess.  But I know I don't want maintainer-clean in Texinfo to go
> deleting my Makefile.am's.

:-)

> P.S. Ok, "bootstrap" isn't technically the right term for all this, but
> you know what I mean :).

Ideas for a better name?