Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:03:11 PDT From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel versions and config's rm -rf Message-ID: <95Sep24.150322pdt.177475@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Sep 95 14:34:43 PDT." <199509242134.OAA01414@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199509242134.OAA01414@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> you write:
>I like this, it is far more appropriate than an rm -rf, but should be
>reduced even further to just ``make clean; rm *.h'' and the clean: target had
>better do the right things. No need to rm the Makefile, config is going
>to overwrite it anyway. I can see the reasoning for rm *.h, as config and
>or files{,.i386} may have changed and not rewrite all the same .h files :-(.
I wanted to end up with as clean a directory as possible. I thought that
the "rm -rf" was to get around dependency problems, but since I wasn't
absolutely sure I figured I should remove everything that I didn't know
was absolutely fine to keep.
>Start at 0 vs start at 1, well, that is a religous issue.
Fine, I figured it would be, I won't argue it.
>That is not what you said above :-).
As I said, I wanted to be as sure as possible that every potentially "bad"
thing was gone.
>Also what happens if %s does not
>exist?? Or am I missing to much context here and we already know that
>it does exist?
We know that it exists and is a directory.
Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?95Sep24.150322pdt.177475>