On 2023-11-01 16:39:24 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > OTOH, it seems somewhat unlikely that maintainer-clean is utilized much in
> > extensions. I see it in things like postgis, but that has it's own configure
> > etc, even though it also invokes pgxs.
>
> I thought about this. I don't think this is something that any extension
> would use. If they care about the distinction between distclean and
> maintainer-clean, are they also doing their own distprep and dist? Seems
> unlikely. I mean, if some extension is actually affected, I'm happy to
> accommodate, but we can deal with that when we learn about it. Moreover, if
> we are moving forward in this direction, we would presumably also like the
> extensions to get rid of their distprep step.
>
> So I think we are ready to move ahead with this patch. There have been some
> light complaints earlier in this thread that people wanted to keep some way
> to clean only some of the files. But there hasn't been any concrete
> follow-up on that, as far as I can see, so I don't know what to do about
> that.
+1, let's do this. We can add dedicated target for more specific cases later
if we decide we want that.