From xemacs-m  Tue Sep  2 21:24:28 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA29016;
	Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:24:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id TAA23184; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:23:56 -0700
Received: from kindra.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id TAA21082; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:23:54 -0700
Received: from xemacs.eng.sun.com by kindra.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA02404; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:23:52 -0700
Received: by xemacs.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA02844; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:23:51 -0700
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:23:51 -0700
Message-Id: <199709030223.TAA02844@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
To: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [Q] The best way to build/install XEmacs for different binaries?
In-Reply-To: <m2zppvw3e3.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <199709020743.KAA24937@merlin.ornet.co.il>
	<bylo1gxbv4.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch>
	<m2lo1f39hn.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199709030115.SAA02808@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
	<m2zppvw3e3.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under 20.3 "Vienna" XEmacs  Lucid (beta14)
Reply-To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>

>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org> writes:

sb> Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM> writes:
>>>>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org> writes:

sb> I don't recommend using `make distclean'.  That is primarily for
sb> the maintainer prior to generating tarballs for distribution.
sb> `make clean' is better.

>> I disagree, and am surprised that you wouldn't recommend `make
>> distclean' for the explicit job of returning to that pristine
>> just-untarred state.

sb> I don't seem to need it and it has the added disadvantage of requiring
sb> a full run of configure.

That's exactly the idea.  If you don't want to rerun configure, then
`make clean' is the right target to use.  This works today, doesn't it?

sb> I also reserve the right to change `make distclean' to start removing
sb> .elcs in the future. :-)

NO. NO. NO. `make maintainer-clean' (which we don't have yet) can do that.

>> From the GNU coding standards:

sb> Whatever.

I see no good reason to change the semantics of agreed-upon make
targets.  We can and do deviate from the way things are done by other
GNU programs, but we should have a good reason for doing things differently.

Martin

