gh-110704: Recommend distclean target over clean when source tree is not clean
#112610
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SnoopJ
changed the title
distclean target over clean when source tree is not cleandistclean target over clean when source tree is not clean
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #110704
This changeset recommends using the
distcleantarget over thecleantarget when the clean source tree check fails, as the latter does not remove files that will reliably fail the check if they are present (python$(BUILDEXE)in particular). Theclobbertarget might work just as well, butdistcleanseems like the more user-legible change here.Discovered while trying to run the build script introduced by #112473, I have not previously run into this problem before, but it had my scratching my head for a couple of minutes before I looked at the check target and realized the report was misleading me.
This change seems niche enough not to require a
NEWSentry but I'm happy to write one if a maintainer disagrees.