From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:28:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] *clean targets In-Reply-To: <20091009094809.GH2266@mx.loc> (Bernhard Reutner-Fischer's message of "Fri\, 9 Oct 2009 11\:48\:09 +0200") References: <20091007162422.GI10261@mx.loc> <20091009095152.555ceed2@surf> <20091009100008.7d0f2c65@surf> <20091009094809.GH2266@mx.loc> Message-ID: <87my40hkmz.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Bernhard" == Bernhard Reutner-Fischer writes: Hi, >> * On the clean target >> >> I see that all the stamps are removed. So this will trigger >> basically a reconfigure + rebuild of all packages. Is this what we >> want ? Bernhard> yes, this is what i as a user would expect. Bernhard> Something broke, i have to rebuild stuff, so i Bernhard> make clean ; make So in other words, we should just have clean and distclean, where the only difference between those two is that clean doesn't delete your .config? >> Same question as before: is removing the target/ directory without >> removing the staging/ directory really safe ? >> >> Removing $(IMAGE) will not do anything, since $(IMAGE) is the prefix >> for the filesystem images. I.e, the tar image is $(IMAGE).tar. Bernhard> the IMAGE was there already. Ask Ulf what it was ment to be. Ok, but lets really fix up stuff now that we're changing these things. >> Shouldn't we just remove $(BINARIES_DIR) ? Bernhard> works for me, but they have to be regenerated anyway, so not Bernhard> much point, i'd say. They should imho get removed so the user doesn't get confused if the build fails, but they still see (old) binaries in BINARIES_DIR. But ok, moot point if we make clean remove everything. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard