Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 1810 in lilypond: Make bin/bin-clean problem

[lilypond]

Comment #4 on issue 1810 by address@hidden: Make bin/bin-clean  
problem
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1810

* Additional comment to original report

Building and cleaning targets are not necessarily symmetric.  It's easy to  
add cleaning targets that remove specific parts of a build, but getting a  
specific target to be built correctly is made difficult by our complex  
build system, partly because of the schizophreny of directory-based  
recursive build and real dependencies going across directories, some of  
them bottom-up, others top-down...

* Reply to Phil (Comment 2)

For the point of bin-clean, see e.g.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-08/msg00234.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-07/msg00279.html

* Reply to Graham (Comment 3)

I dislike #1, because it would leave a (phony) target that fails to build  
on a clean tree.  Non-phony targets shouldn't fail either, but our build  
system might be very far from satisfying this requirement; IMO we should at  
least require that most phony targets build on a clean tree (doc is a  
notable exception, but even this could be fixed, that's a separate issue  
however).

I don't like #3 either.  All people qualified to implement #3 have better  
energy to spend, given the number of build issues and the small difference  
in resources usage between building out/bin/lilypond and "make all" on a  
tree that has the fonts already built.  I suggest developers to  
replace "make bin" with "make all" (which works not too badly for  
rebuilding if you compare with "make doc") or if necessary "make bin-clean  
&& make all"; with either incantation, if fonts source have been untouched  
they won't be rebuilt.

That said, barring strong opposition I'll remove "bin" target.