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>
>> ---
>> 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...
I also now see there's "-rm " usages - so looks like it makes my comment
in 1/4 unnecessary. It just looked strange to me...
John