Re: [PATCH-for-5.0?] configure: Do not leave sphinx in-tree artifacts

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 4/3/20 7:49 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 4/3/20 12:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 4/3/20 11:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 17:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
> > > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > When ./configure checks the sphinx version is new enough, it leaves
> > > > the docs/sphinx/__pycache__/ directory. Avoid this by using the '-B'
> > > > option (don't write .py[co] files on import) via the
> > > > PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE environment variable.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> > >
> > > This only happens for an in-tree build, right? I think in
> > > that case you're kind of OK with having random stuff
> > > left in the source tree... It seems easy enough to suppress
> > > them though, so I guess we might as well.
> >
> > It happens in VPATH too - and what's more, in VPATH, it is still 
> > creating it under srcdir rather than builddir, which feels like 
> > unnecessary pollution.  I was trying to prove whether 'make distclean' 
> > got us back to a pristine state; this was one of the files that 
> > escaped 'make distclean', so our choice is to either add it to the 
> > clean rules, or to avoid creating it in the first place.  I like the 
> > approach of not creating it in the first place :)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>
> Hmm, I spoke early.  Your patch only addresses the pollution during 
> './configure'.  But running 'make' (even in a VPATH build) equally 
> creates the same pollution.  Which means we really ought to be cleaning 
> it up during 'make distclean' rather than just trying to make 
> './configure' clever.

Oh I only checked ./configure indeed, sorry. Thanks for testing!