On Aug 17 2014 11:19 AM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:40:27AM -0600, EBo wrote: >> you know, I have always questioned the quality of any code base that >> did not have a make uninstall > > For a long time, I have taken the view that it's the distribution's > job > to handle package installation and removal. > > One problem I feel exists with any "make uninstall" is: that if you > 'make && make install' at rev A, then 'make uninstall' at rev B, then > the uninstall is simply going to be wrong if rev B installs a > different > set of files. > > (Not to mention that it's simply easy for 'make uninstall' to be > silently broken) > > (and not to mention the case where you did "make install" 37 > different > times over the last year, from 6 different linuxcnc source trees) > > Package managers can get this right, because they do extra stuff like > track which specific files were installed, ensure that an old package > is > removed before a new one is installed, and more things in ways that > are > more sophisticated than anything I might dream up to put in linuxcnc. > > That's why I recommend to work on building linuxcnc with your > favorite > package manager, not implementing "make uninstall".
that is part of why I use gentoo and portage. I guess I have to retract my offer to volunteer then. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
