Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 4/4] docs: Don't leave any documentation behind

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:57:25AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 04/19/2016 10:48 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 19.04.2016 16:38, John Ferlan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 04/19/2016 09:50 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>>> Our uninstall script is not exact counterpart of install one. >>>> Therefore we are leaving couple of files behind. This should not >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> --- >>>> docs/Makefile.am | 6 ++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>> >>> >>> At 'install-data-local:', there's a : >>> >>> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR) >>> >>> why not just the far more all encompassing: >>> >>> rm -rf $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR) >>> >>> and >>> >>> rm -rf $(DESTDIR)$(DEVHELP_DIR) >>> >>> Rather than picking each part we install to uninstall? and missing >>> something in the future or even now. Do the 'html' or 'internals' >>> directories gets removed? And then of course the toplevel directory >>> which we created. >>> >>> IOW: There's no corollary for the: >>> >>> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR) >>> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)/html >>> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)/internals >>> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(DEVHELP_DIR) >>> >>> >> >> Yeah. That's the other way of doing that. It's just that if users put >> anything in $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR) it will be removed by uninstall. But I >> can propose v2 if you want. >> > > I see there are other 'rf -rm' usages in other "clean" labels... > > I don't have a strong feeling either way - perhaps there's other > opinionated folks that would like to chime in. If no one chimes in, > then I'm OK with what's here... > rm -rf is fine with me and I believe with others as well, so ACK from me.