small make clean fix

small make clean fix

[Stefan Holst]

hi,

yet another small patch from me:
this fixes make clean/mrproper to remove arch/sparc/boot/System.map, too.
it was all along in the way while making patches...

maybe it is a bug in kbuild that clean target is not executed
in arch/sparc/boot/Makefile?

diff -urN a/arch/sparc/boot/Makefile b/arch/sparc/boot/Makefile
--- a/arch/sparc/boot/Makefile	2004-02-29 23:35:40.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/sparc/boot/Makefile	2004-03-21 22:16:02.096364040 +0100
@@ -32,6 +32,3 @@
 
 $(obj)/btfix.s: $(obj)/btfixupprep vmlinux FORCE
 	$(call if_changed,btfix)
-
-clean:
-	rm $(obj)/System.map
diff -urN a/arch/sparc/Makefile b/arch/sparc/Makefile
--- a/arch/sparc/Makefile	2004-03-11 11:32:58.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/sparc/Makefile	2004-03-21 22:13:17.005461672 +0100
@@ -67,7 +67,8 @@
 	$(call filechk,gen-asm-offsets)
 
 CLEAN_FILES +=	include/asm-$(ARCH)/asm_offsets.h	\
-		arch/$(ARCH)/kernel/asm-offsets.s
+		arch/$(ARCH)/kernel/asm-offsets.s	\
+		arch/$(ARCH)/boot/System.map
 
 # Don't use tabs in echo arguments.
 define archhelp

-- 
RY  Stefan
+-----------------+----------------+
| mail@s-holst.de | www.s-holst.de |
+-----------------+----------------+

Re: small make clean fix

[Keith M Wesolowski]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:42:23PM +0100, Stefan Holst wrote:

> diff -urN a/arch/sparc/Makefile b/arch/sparc/Makefile
> --- a/arch/sparc/Makefile	2004-03-11 11:32:58.000000000 +0100
> +++ b/arch/sparc/Makefile	2004-03-21 22:13:17.005461672 +0100
> @@ -67,7 +67,8 @@
>  	$(call filechk,gen-asm-offsets)
>  
>  CLEAN_FILES +=	include/asm-$(ARCH)/asm_offsets.h	\
> -		arch/$(ARCH)/kernel/asm-offsets.s
> +		arch/$(ARCH)/kernel/asm-offsets.s	\
> +		arch/$(ARCH)/boot/System.map
>  
>  # Don't use tabs in echo arguments.
>  define archhelp

Pete rejected this when I wrote it last year, and applied the clean
target instead.  This is probably my fault, since I failed to tell him
that it doesn't work (or perhaps it did then but doesn't now).

Pete, knowing that the clean target doesn't get called, do you still
object to this?

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski

Re: small make clean fix

[Pete Zaitcev]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:12:58 -0800
Keith M Wesolowski <wesolows@foobazco.org> wrote:

> Pete rejected this when I wrote it last year, and applied the clean
> target instead.  This is probably my fault, since I failed to tell him
> that it doesn't work (or perhaps it did then but doesn't now).
> 
> Pete, knowing that the clean target doesn't get called, do you still
> object to this?

I remember the story, but I forgot on what grounds I did it.
I seem to recall having it in my tree for a while and something
did not work. But maybe it's just my imagination. Why don't you
keep it in your work tree for a week, if nothing breaks, call it good?

-- Pete

Re: small make clean fix

[Keith M Wesolowski]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 04:08:54PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> I remember the story, but I forgot on what grounds I did it.
> I seem to recall having it in my tree for a while and something
> did not work. But maybe it's just my imagination. Why don't you
> keep it in your work tree for a week, if nothing breaks, call it good?

I can do better than that; it's been in my work tree and the Gentoo
kernels for 4 months and nobody's had any problems.

Applied, thanks guys.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski