svn@coreboot.org wrote:
Author: stuge Date: 2008-06-22 04:00:39 +0200 (Sun, 22 Jun 2008) New Revision: 3378
Modified: trunk/util/flashrom/Makefile Log: flashrom: Some Makefile cleaning
Signed-off-by: Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se Acked-by: Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se
Modified: trunk/util/flashrom/Makefile
--- trunk/util/flashrom/Makefile 2008-06-21 04:39:17 UTC (rev 3377) +++ trunk/util/flashrom/Makefile 2008-06-22 02:00:39 UTC (rev 3378) @@ -46,11 +46,11 @@ $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(SVNDEF) $(CPPFLAGS) $< -o $@
clean:
- rm -f *.o *~
- rm -f $(PROGRAM) *.o *~
distclean: clean
- rm -f $(PROGRAM) .dependencies
- rm -f .dependencies
Sorry, I don't like this ... it's not cleaning up but changing the behavior.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:30:03PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
clean:
- rm -f *.o *~
- rm -f $(PROGRAM) *.o *~
distclean: clean
- rm -f $(PROGRAM) .dependencies
- rm -f .dependencies
Sorry, I don't like this ...
Don't like the self-ack or the actual change?
it's not cleaning up but changing the behavior.
I agree this is a change in build system behavior and for that reason it might not have been so nice to self-ack. However, it harmonizes flashrom with pretty much every other tool I have built. It's not very common for "make clean" to leave the binary around, thus I think the change (making flashrom's build system more intuitive) is trivial enough to self-ack.
As always I am very open to discussion!
//Peter
Peter Stuge wrote:
Sorry, I don't like this ...
Don't like the self-ack or the actual change?
yes.
it's not cleaning up but changing the behavior.
I agree this is a change in build system behavior and for that reason it might not have been so nice to self-ack. However, it harmonizes flashrom with pretty much every other tool I have built. It's not very common for "make clean" to leave the binary around, thus I think the change (making flashrom's build system more intuitive) is trivial enough to self-ack.
As always I am very open to discussion!
I don't think this gets better by extending the discussion. It's far easier to fix the few scripts this breaks than to start another lengthy discussion.
We might want to consider dropping distclean completely, by the same reasons you brought for your current behavior.
I checked the other makefiles around and most of them indeed clean the binary in make clean, not make distclean.
Stefan
-
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer