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@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...
rm -rf is fine with me and I believe with others as well, so ACK from me.
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...
I think '-' means "don't error out if this fails", similarly to '@' meaning "Don't print the command being ran" IIRC.
John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list