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

[Bob Proulx]

Hello Stepan,

Apologies to all for continuing the large crossposting.  I am not
subscribed to those lists.

Stepan Kasal wrote:
> For details, see my post here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2007-03/msg00043.html
> 
> But people tend to guess that this target must be the opposite to
> bootstrapping from CVS.

First off let me say that I was perfectly aware of the standards for
make maintainer-clean when I posted my response to that message.
There is no standard target to perform the desired operation.  That
poster had a very particular set of needs.  My suggestion there did
not in any way reflect a "standard" use of automake or use of the gnu
standards.  It was a very targeted (ab)use of the tool.  I knew that.
I was not proposing a modification of the standards.

The user was wanting to do something non-standard, but not
unreasonable, and expanding upon using the MAINTAINERCLEANFILES seemed
like the easiest way to accomplish that.  I don't think the user had
any intention of distributing the code as a GNU project.

> Moreover, I noticed that AutoGen tries to use maintainer-clean in
> this twisted way.

I have not looked at AutoGen nor how it is using these tools.

> Another example: when I submitted a patch that removed Makefile.in
> from MAINTAINERCLEANFILES to HAL, I got told that using
> `maintainer-clean' to delete everything generated by autotools has
> become a ``common practice'':
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2007-March/007667.html

A quote from Jon McCann:
> > I suspect the reason that so many people use this practice is that
> > it solves a very common problem for maintainers, namely: how to
> > clean all files generated by autogen.sh.

I found that a quite reasonable statement.  The practical concerns of
needing a clean target win over the philosophical desire to
standardize but not having a useful standardized operation to use.  I
agree that as a GNU project it should follow the standardized use of
the defined targets.  It is a shame to remove functionality not
otherwise provided in order to do this.  In defense when using the
maintainer targets you are assuming the role of a maintainer and more
technical capability is assumed and often required in that case.  I
doubt this issue is actually causing a real problem.

> I'm afraid that this might become a big mess.  I think that the GNU
> standardization crew might help here.

I respectfully suggest that a standards committee driving design may
not be the best way to do this.  It would be better to implement the
new behavior first and then after it is proven useful and effective
then drive changing the standards to use it.

> There is a strong need for an un-bootstrap.  Which command shouls
> fill the gap?

It would be good to have some improved functionality in this area.
See also my posting asking for a clean target for generated source
files.  [All it needs is someone to actually do the work. :-)]

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2007-03/msg00001.html

> If `make maintainer-clean', then the GNU Standards should be changed
> to reflect this.  The obvious disadvantage is that if the
> bootstrap&&configure does not finish, maintainer-clean is not usable.

If configure does not finish then no Makefile based target is usable.
Which may have been your point.  But I think it is safe to assume a
working system and in an working system configure will finish and
Makefile targets will be available.

Bob