[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:25:15 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060911)

Benoit Sigoure wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Korb <address@hidden>:
>> Not knowing the guts of this, my only complaint has to do
>> with the help text for ``--clean'' and the lack of consistency
>> WRT ``-c'' being an acceptable alias for it.
> Yeah you're right, the message should be consistent in the different
> programs.
> What about keeping:
> "--clean              remove the files that would otherwise be created"
> Actually the message might be misleading because the tool might remove
> files
> that are already installed and that wouldn't be created because of that...

--clean   remove the files that this program could otherwise recreate

Naw.  It isn't misleading enough to need to be so excruciatingly correct
that it becomes difficult to understand the intention.  Shorter is
better, but your suggestion reads fine to me.  Precision is what man
pages and info docs are about.

> I thought that autoreconf deserved to have `-c' as a short option for
> `--clean'
> because autoreconf has only few options ATM and since people are used to do
> `autoreconf -fvi' it would be convenient to write `autoreconf -fvc'. The
> other
> tools have many more configuration options and I wasn't sure that adding
> `-c'
> wouldn't be problematic / conflict with already existing options.

Just a consistency thing: ``without good reason otherwise''
conflict qualifies as a "good reason". :)

Cheers - Bruce

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]