>>>Should we make that a default or something? ie, "make" would include
>>>"make clean-autoloads" from the CEDET directory. Or perhaps as Emacs
>>>does, "make bootstrap" could do that.
>>Do you mean to add "clean-autoloads" as the first dependency of the
>>default "all" target in the main CEDET Makefile?
>>If so, what is the point of including default loaddefs files in the
>>distribution, as they will be first deleted by "make"?
>>About "make bootstrap", it is a good idea. However, it would probably
>>make more sense to have it equivalent to "make clean-all; make", to do
>>a full rebuild of all generated files. WDYT?
> [ ... ]
> Rmail tells me I forgot to respond to this.
> You have the gist of what I was suggesting, but I do not know if it
> is the right thing to do. Your suggestion for what bootstrap does
> also makes good sense.
Perhaps we could have a "make packages" target equivalent to current
"all" target, which just do make in each package subdirectory (so just
update the loaddefs).
Then we could change the "all" target to be equivalent to "make
clean-autoloads packages", to ensure the loaddefs are rebuilt by
Finally, we could add a "make bootstrap" target to do a full rebuild
of the distribution, equivalent to "make clean-all packages".
Following is what the change could look like (untested). WDYT?
*** Makefile 2004-03-28 08:37:01.000000000 +0200
--- Makefile1 2004-06-11 14:59:37.000000000 +0200
*** 61,67 ****
! all: $(CEDET_PACKAGES)
--- 61,71 ----
! all: clean-autoloads packages
! bootstrap: clean-all packages
! packages: $(CEDET_PACKAGES)