[Python-Dev] End of the mystery "@README.txt Mercurial bug"
R. David Murray
rdmurray at bitdance.com
Wed Jun 26 16:18:49 CEST 2013
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Wed Jun 26 16:18:49 CEST 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] End of the mystery "@README.txt Mercurial bug"
- Next message: [Python-Dev] End of the mystery "@README.txt Mercurial bug"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:39:54 -0400, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 09:04 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > >I run 'make distclean' fairly often, but maybe it's just out of habit. > >If I'm adding/deleting modules, I want to make sure there are no build > >artifacts. And since I have modified files, a clean checkout won't help > >(easily, at least). > > As do I. I think it still makes sense for us to include a working distclean, > especially since it's a very common target for make-based builds. We also sometimes ask someone reporting an issue to do a make distclean and recompile, and many of these reporters will be working from a tarball rather than a checkout. Sure, they could re-unpack the tarball (if they haven't deleted it already), but make distclean is easier. --David
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] End of the mystery "@README.txt Mercurial bug"
- Next message: [Python-Dev] End of the mystery "@README.txt Mercurial bug"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list