From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Sep 24 15:04:14 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA16877
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:04:14 -0700
Received: from alpha.xerox.com (alpha.Xerox.COM [13.1.64.93])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA16847
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:04:09 -0700
Received: from crevenia.parc.xerox.com ([13.2.116.11]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <15348(2)>; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:03:25 PDT
Received: from localhost by crevenia.parc.xerox.com with SMTP id <177475>; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:03:22 -0700
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kernel versions and config's rm -rf 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 24 Sep 95 14:34:43 PDT."
             <199509242134.OAA01414@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> 
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:03:11 PDT
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Sep24.150322pdt.177475@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

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