Re: [Autogen-users] Shouldn't the definition of maintainer-clean be changed?

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello Bruce and all.

[Omitting autogen-users, I'll send a patch submission there
in a separate mail.]

  I started this thread with an unfortunate mail.  Allow me to
my current understanding of situation.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:00:05AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> [...] "maintainer-clean" semantics do not change. [...]

Yes, that was the main answer I got from the list.  The definition of
"maintainer-clean" should not change.

My mail sounded that I'm in favor of changing the definition.
Actually, I was under the impression that no one takes the definition
seriously, so I was trying to ask:  1) "Is this meant seriously?"
2) "If yes, how are we going to defend it?"

Though I failed to formulate the questions properly, I think I got my
answers:
1) Yes, and it is used in practice.
2) By implementing "auto* --clean" which would match people's need
   for "un-bootstrap".

> * How about having autoreconf (aka "bootstrap") take an option:
>      autoreconf --clean
>      bootstrap --clean

As said above, I gather that this is the way to go.

Have a nice day,  Stepan Kasal