Re: [PATCH] binutils: doc: move back binutils.info to MAINTAINERCLEANFILES

[Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 06:27:51PM -0500, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2020-03-06 6:19 p.m., Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 11:25:56AM -0500, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >> In commit 2b44a6a237 (" binutils: doc: make `make clean` clean more
> >> things"), I moved binutils.info to the MOSTLYCLEANFILES, which made it
> >> get removed by "make clean".
> >>
> >> Because generating binutils.info requires makeinfo, and we do not want
> >> to require makeinfo when building from the tarball, binutils.info should
> >> not get removed by "make clean" (otherwise, it won't be included in the
> >> tarball).
> >>
> >> This patch puts it back in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES, so that it only gets
> >> cleaned if you use "make maintainer-clean".
> >>
> >> Tested by building a source release and confirming that binutils.info is
> >> present.
> > 
> > It's not just binutils.info but also all the .1 files.  I think you
> > should move $(man_MANS) to MAINTAINERCLEANFILES too.  src-release.sh
> > does a "make distclean" when preparings sources for a tar file.
> 
> Even though the .1 files don't require texinfo to be built?  As far as I
> can see, they only require perl, which I presume we can assume is available.

I'm going by what used to be distributed, and the fact that
ld/Makefile.am has ld.1 in MAINTAINERCLEANFILES and
gas/doc/Makefile.am doesn't mention as.1 in any clean rule.  You are
correct that they only require perl, but there isn't a good reason to
make binutils/doc different from other directories.

> > 
> >> binutils/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 	PR 25491
> >> 	* doc/Makefile.am: Move binutils.info to MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
> >> 	* doc/Makefile.in: Re-generate.
> > 
> > OK with man_MANS moved too.
> 
> And cxxfilt.man too I presume?

That one is an intermediary, but yes, it looks like the way the
makefile is written that too should be distributed along with .1
files.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM