On 20.04.2016 16:37, Martin Kletzander wrote: > 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. Thank you both guys. I've pushed these. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list