Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:41:07AM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The suggestion that "git clean" be a solution appears to have caused
>> some level of outrage. However, at least for '3.0 (git)', all the
>> sources are known to git, and 'git clean' is a reliable and simple
>> solution to the problem. The alternative, manually reverting all
>> the changes, is both complex and error-prone. I'm not sure I see the
>> problem with what is an obvious improvement to the process.
>
> I'd favor a solution that avoids having to fix hundres, or thousands,
> of upstream packages. For example, instead of building directly in
> the working tree, we could export the sources to a temporary directory
> and build there. Voila: no build artifacts to clean up at all.
That sucks nearly as much as packages that unpack a upstream.tar.gz for
every build. It makes editing the source, running "make" till it works
and then building a new package a problem.
What can usualy be done quite easily is out-of-tree builds. Pretty much
the same effect with less inconvenience.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wr9nyu6e.fsf@frosties.localnet
