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@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> 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 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list