Re: makefile uninstall somewhat aggressive?

[Hugh Sasse]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Michael Piotrowski wrote:

> Hugh Sasse <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> Since Lout doesn't install any libraries you can get this type of
> >> setup by simply setting
> >> 
> >>   LIBDIR = /usr/local/lib/lout
> >
> > Yes, that would work too.  Then the variable should be called something
> > else, I think, because that's LOUTLIBDIR really, rather than LIBDIR.
> 
> Well, I don't know whether this would make a big difference ;-)

Maybe I still have "beginner's mind", but to me LIBDIR says
"the directory where all your libraries go" while LOUTLIBDIR says
"the directory where you lout libraries go".

> 
> > And, it should have the version number in there as well, I
> > think. That would allow people to try out new releases when their
> > users are not early adopters.
> 
> Since you have to edit the makefile anyway, you can also put in the
> version number if you want.  Note that if you want to install several
> releases into the same hierarchy, you'd also need to modify the names
> of the executables.

Yes. I concede that. :-)
> 
> >> and you won't have any problems when doing a make uninstall, without
> >> needing a rule for every single file.
> >
> > Agreed.  I think my difficulty was that the expected behaviour was not
> > entirely clear, so I thought it would be better to make the code do
> > the least harm.
> 
> That's certainly a good idea, and I agree that the makefile could be
> improved in some respects, but we should try to avoid making the
> makefile overly complicated.  The advantage of editing the makefile

Agreed.  Achieving simplicity in a Makefile when you must put
shellscripts on one line is tricky.  However, my concern was about
not doing harm if the person editing misunderstands where to point
LIBDIR.  And reducing repetition.

> directly--as opposed to having something like configure--is that you
> know *exactly* where everything will go.  Maybe some comments
> explaining what exactly will be installed in LIBDIR might already
> help.

Something upfront about LIBDIR, DOCDIR being rm -rf'ed during uninstall
might be good too.
> 
> >> Personally, I always install stuff under /opt/<packagename>, where you
> >> can easily see what you installed and you don't need anything more
> >> advanced than rm(1) to remove it ...
> >
> > Doesn't that play havoc with your (LD_LIBRARY_)PATHs?
> 
> No :-) In my experience, this scheme only has advantages: Apart from
> the easy installation of different versions and the clean removal of
> packages, you can simply adjust your PATH to get exactly the version
> you want.  I don't use LD_LIBRARY_PATH but hardcode the paths to
> shared libraries: Relying on LD_LIBRARY_PATH can lead to nasty
> effects.

My $PATH is too long (for my eyesight) anyway -- it presently runs
to 6 lines.  I get the complexities of LD_LIBRARY_PATH on solaris 
"for free" :-) so it needs to be right.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> -- 
        Thank you,
        Hugh