From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:11:54 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Makefile: document make -dirclean In-Reply-To: References: <20140619182648.GB3534@free.fr> <409511316.213968.1403203738913.JavaMail.root@mail> <20140619201047.GC3534@free.fr> Message-ID: <20140620121154.39a88ecb@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:40:10 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > According to me, foo-dirclean is much more useful to the typical user > than foo-rebuild or foo-reconfigure. I agree. > The latter two actions are > typically used for OVERRIDE_SRCDIR only, right? While -dirclean can be > used for any kind of (mis)action you performed. Well, I also use -rebuild and -reconfigure when I directly hack into output/build/-/ to do a quick test. > So while I agree that some make targets should be listed to make sure > the unsuspecting user is aware that they exist, dirclean would > definitely be a part of this list, while rebuild/reconfigure need not > necessarily IMO. True. > Maybe we should create a list of all the possible targets (here in > this thread I mean) and then decide case-by-case if it's necessary to > list them in 'make help' or not? Another possible solution would be to have a -help target that lists all targets that are possible on a package, and then the main "make help" only references that. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com