Currently automake does not remove directories in `make uninstall' and
I did not find any text regarding this in the GNU coding guidelines
either. So what's the right thing to do here?
a) always remove the directories
b) just remove the directories that were created during `make install'
c) remo
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 May 2000, Didier Verna wrote:
>
> > > Assar> d) remove all the levels that are empty
> > >
> > > This is what I've always wanted to do.
> >
> > You mean `levels' that belong to the package itself, right ? I mean
> > /usr/local/share/a
> : Is there any value to keeping /usr/local/share, if it's empty?
> : Theorectically yes, but the next package that needs it will recreate it
> : anyway. Implementation would be simplified with this assumption.
>
> I say, remove /usr/local and even /usr if possible ;)
Why stop there? ;-))
"Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I say, remove /usr/local and even /usr if possible ;)
Yet, not if they are symbolic links :-).
--
François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
Hello!
> I say, remove /usr/local and even /usr if possible ;)
But what if /usr/local was empty but existed before "make install" ?
What if /usr/local is a mount point?
Automake is not a system administration tool. The only real reason to
remove a directory is because the package indicates that
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:20:30AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
: > I say, remove /usr/local and even /usr if possible ;)
:
: But what if /usr/local was empty but existed before "make install" ?
: What if /usr/local is a mount point?
Nuke it anyway...
I was of course joking in my original remark,
Whoops, thought this should also go to the mailing list for more general
comment.
-Original Message-
From: Masterson, David
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:25 AM
To: 'François Pinard'; Masterson, David
Subject: RE: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
How about &q
Assar Westerlund writes:
> b) just remove the directories that were created during `make install'
If you `make install' twice then the second time the directories aren't
created anymore, so the `make uninstall' would not attempt to remove them.
Not good.
> c) remove the last level of directory
Tom Tromey writes:
> Assar> d) remove all the levels that are empty
>
> This is what I've always wanted to do.
> I've never gotten around to it though. It never seemed all that
> important, given the relative uselessness of "uninstall".
Might part of that perceived uselessness come from the fa
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Might part of that perceived uselessness come from the fact
Peter> that it doesn't remove the directories?
I don't think so. I think that one big reason is that you have to
keep (the skeleton of) the build tree around for "uni
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> The added beauty of this approach would be that `rminstalldirs'
Peter> would be to `rmdir -p' what `mkinstalldirs' is now to `mkdir
Peter> -p'. A possible (though perhaps not perfect) implementation of
Peter> rminstalldirs is at
Hello, Tom!
> I think we should not introduce more utilities. We have way too many
> already. How about reimplementing this as a patch to "missing"? Then
> we can do "missing rmdir -p". Having AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE look for "rmdir
> -p" would also be appropriate...
Let's make "missing" handle "mk
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Let's make "missing" handle "mkdir -p" to begin with.
That would be fine with me.
Pavel> I still insist that no directories should be removed by "make
Pavel> uninstall" unless they defininely belong to the package being
Pavel> uni
Hello, Peter!
> That's not quite it either. If I install something into
> /opt/foo-0.99/{bin,lib,include} and then it only removes the bin, lib, and
> include parts, then it's arguably being less than helpful.
IMHO you install something into /opt/foo-0.99 it's because you don't trust
your packag
> Pavel> I still insist that no directories should be removed by "make
> Pavel> uninstall" unless they defininely belong to the package being
> Pavel> uninstalled.
>
> I doubt there is any way to determine this.
>
> Pavel> I don't want to figure out why /usr/local/man/man8 is not
> Pavel> write
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Let's make "missing" handle "mkdir -p" to begin with. Maybe
Pavel> install-sh could be wrapped into missing as well.
I absolutely agree, but I'm not sure `missing' is a good start. Let's
dive into shtool too, there might be good
What if a file was created in builddir when you do make install?
When you do make uninstall, a comparison is done between the creation
time of that file, and the creation time of all the empty directories.
Only directories newer than the reference file is deleted. If the
reference file already ex
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities
Akim> and one big. The difference is moot to me (Hm, I read that
Akim> somewhere, but I'm not sure I'm writing correct English :).
There's a difference to me. I get t
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities and
> one big.
Oh, each supplementary file we distribute is a bit of a burden to the
maintainer (Auto- tools could help here :-), but more importantly, one more
bit of pollution each time
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:57:11PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> IMHO you install something into /opt/foo-0.99 it's because you don't trust
> your packaging system and want to remove things manually when you need to.
I for one would profoundly distrust a packaging system that was
capable of removi
raut; Assar Westerlund;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities
Akim> and one big. The diffe
0 3:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
> Pavel> I still insist that no directories should be removed by "make
> Pavel> uninstall" unless they defininely belong to the package being
> Pavel> uninstalled.
>
> I do
> "David" == Masterson, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Would those complaints be really due to "too many files"
David> (ie. size issue) or "too many files with questionable purpose"?
Actually I think it is not size (in bytes) or purpose, but rather the
annoyance of typing "ls" and
Masterson, David writes:
> Also, "make install" may test to see if the target directory pre-existed
Keeping track of what directories you actually made will not work. Let's
say I install pkg1 in /opt/bin, it creates both /opt and /opt/bin. Then I
install pkg2 in /opt/bin and /opt/lib, it only ma
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> Well, I could certainly agree on that `missing mkdir -p' should be made to
> work, but it could do so by calling mkinstalldirs. These scripts are
> useful in their own right, even for people who don't know or need the GNU
> missing script. Once agai
François Pinard writes:
> So, if `missing' ever replaces `install-sh' and `mkinstalldirs', this
> should be seen as a good thing, absolutely in the spirit of the design
> of `missing'.
Well, I could certainly agree on that `missing mkdir -p' should be made to
work, but it could do so by calling
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think we should not introduce more utilities. We have way too many
> already. How about reimplementing this as a patch to "missing"?
Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.) whereas
mkinstalldirs, install-sh, etc. are the real thing,
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think we should not introduce more utilities. We have way too
>> many already. How about reimplementing this as a patch to
>> "missing"?
Peter> Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.)
Peter> whereas mkinstalld
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.) whereas
> mkinstalldirs, install-sh, etc. are the real thing, but implemented
> in shell. I don't think these things should be mixed up.
The idea of `missing' is to ensure that an installati
> "ois" == ois Pinard writes:
> So, if `missing' ever replaces `install-sh' and `mkinstalldirs',
> this should be seen as a good thing, absolutely in the spirit of the
> design of `missing'.
I share your opinion.
And to answer to the fact that missing is currently part of the
Automake ki
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David" == Masterson, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Would those complaints be really due to "too many files"
David> (ie. size issue) or "too many files with questionable purpose"?
Tom> Actually I think it is not size (in byte
>> Akim
> François
>> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities and
>> one big.
> Oh, each supplementary file we distribute is a bit of a burden to
> the maintainer (Auto- tools could help here :-), but more
> importantly, one more bit of pollution each tim
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> >> Akim
> > François
>
> >> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities and
> >> one big.
> While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
> `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
> ABOUT-NLS, C
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
>> `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
>> ABOUT-NLS, ChangeLog, INSTALL, README etc.? Let's face it: there
>> is plenty of useless files in ther
> > Oh, each supplementary file we distribute is a bit of a burden to
> > the maintainer (Auto- tools could help here :-), but more
> > importantly, one more bit of pollution each time the maintainer does
> > `ls' in his/her work files.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> Seriously, there
Hi François !
| > While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
| > `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
| > ABOUT-NLS, ChangeLog, INSTALL, README etc.? Let's face it: there is
| > plenty of useless files in there, nobody cares!
|
| Somebody cares! D
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> | Each distribution should give people all what is needed for maintenance,
> | or at least, good pointers to re-establish a full context of maintenance.
> | Installers, or even users, should not be considered as lesser people.
> That's precisely my poin
Akim Demaille writes:
> I agree that `mkdir -p' belong to the spirit of `missing', but I
> certainly have no problems with `mkinstalldirs',
How does that fit together? Would `missing mkdir -p' invoke
`mkinstalldirs'? That would be fine with me, because then `mkinstalldirs'
is useful in it's own
François Pinard writes:
> Just a comment, here. We used `mkdir -p' all along in this thread,
... although it started with rmdir -p ...
> but I guess it might be better to think `install -d' rather than
> `mkdir -p'.
Is there a difference?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Akim Demaille writes:
>> I agree that `mkdir -p' belong to the spirit of `missing', but I
>> certainly have no problems with `mkinstalldirs',
Peter> How does that fit together? Would `missing mkdir -p' invoke
Peter> `mkinstalld
| [`configure'] is also a product. Yet, we do not distribute the full
| Autoconf and Automake within each distribution. What is needed for easy
| maintenance is at least some good access to sufficient Autoconf (and
| Automake) snapshots, turned into fetchable distributions (probably not CVS).
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [.. mkinstalldirs ..]
> But I have no problem either with a separate shell script.
>
> By the way, why do you say it is useful in its own right?
>
I don't know whom you are addressing to, but IMHO,
* mkin
Lars Hecking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assar Westerlund writes:
> > a) always remove the directories
> > b) just remove the directories that were created during `make install'
> > c) remove the last level of directory if it's empty
> > d) remove all the levels that are empty
>
> A package sy
Assar Westerlund writes:
> Currently automake does not remove directories in `make uninstall' and
> I did not find any text regarding this in the GNU coding guidelines
> either. So what's the right thing to do here?
>
> a) always remove the directories
> b) just remove the directories that were
> "Assar" == Assar Westerlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Assar> Currently automake does not remove directories in `make
Assar> uninstall' and I did not find any text regarding this in the
Assar> GNU coding guidelines either. So what's the right thing to do
Assar> here?
Assar> d) remove all
On 15 May 2000, Didier Verna wrote:
> > Assar> d) remove all the levels that are empty
> >
> > This is what I've always wanted to do.
>
> You mean `levels' that belong to the package itself, right ? I mean
> /usr/local/share/automake, but not /usr/local/share for instance.
Is there any
Hello!
> a) always remove the directories
> b) just remove the directories that were created during `make install'
> c) remove the last level of directory if it's empty
> d) remove all the levels that are empty
e) remove only the directories specific to the package (pkgdatadir,
pkglibdir, pkginc
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 02:17:24PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
: On 15 May 2000, Didier Verna wrote:
: > > Assar> d) remove all the levels that are empty
: > >
: > > This is what I've always wanted to do.
: >
: > You mean `levels' that belong to the package itself, right ? I mean
: >
Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Assar" == Assar Westerlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Assar> Currently automake does not remove directories in `make
> Assar> uninstall' and I did not find any text regarding this in the
> Assar> GNU coding guidelines either. So what's the right thing to do
> Ass
> If it's an automake'd package, or it follows the GNU coding
> guidelines, it'll mkinstalldirs the directories.
mkinstalldirs does not keep track of what it creates. It does not
care whether part of the path to be created exists already, it just
mkdir's the missing dirs.
> But it does crea
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, "make install" may test to see if the target directory pre-existed
Peter> Keeping track of what directories you actually made will not
Peter> work.
I agree. In situations like this, KISS rules. Either "rmdir -p" is
the way
Hello, David!
> Therefore, I think I'd suggest, as "make install" has a call to
> "mkinstalldirs" before the loop to install files, perhaps "make uninstall"
> should have a call to "mkuninstalldirs" after the loop to remove files. The
> "mkuninstalldirs" script can handle the cleanup of supposed
TECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:19 AM
To: Masterson, David
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: FW: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
Hello, David!
> Therefore, I think I'd suggest, as "make install" has a call
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:30:37AM -0700, Masterson, David wrote:
> An option (or environment variable) setting for "mkuninstalldirs"? And
> perhaps the default "do nothing"? Or simply print out "I'd like to remove
> $x dir" and leave it to the sysadmin to decide?
If you *must* implement this,
54 matches
Mail list logo
