No make uninstall
Brought to you by:
captnmark
Menu
▾
▴
#5 No make uninstall
open-wont-fix
nobody
None
5
2005-06-28
2003-07-31
Anonymous
No
There is no "make uninstall" after a ./configure. (only
"make install", "make clean, etc, But not a "make
uninstall").
I think a "make uninstall" is need e.g. if you want to
check the new version and want to be able to go back to
a RPM or a DEB or something. If you don't do a "make
uninstall" (and don't remove it by hand) and you
install a RPM or a DEB you have 2 IceWMs. (in /usr and
in /usr/local)
Logged In: YES
user_id=552894
To create a test installation you might configure like:
./configure --exec-prefix=/usr/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9 \ --datadir=/usr/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9/share
To run the test:
PATH=/usr/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9/bin:$PATH \ startx /usr/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9/bin/icewm -- :1 &
To uninstall the test installation:
rm -rf /usr/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9
To make the installation permanent:
cd /usr/opt && stow -t /usr/local icewm-1.2.10pre9
Logged In: YES
user_id=1814
The previous post pretty much says it all, but I recommend
even simpler way (gicco, why did you use two options?):
./configure --prefix=/opt/icewm-1.2.10pre9
Logged In: NO
OK, it is possible to do it by hand, but isn't it better to
make it possible to "make uninstall" ?
Logged In: NO
De discussion is about: What is the best: make it *possible*
to have a "make uninstall" or not?
I don't think including the possubility of a "make
uninstall" is worse than make it not possible.
And if you don't like it, just don't use it. Including a
"make uninstall" don't force the users to use it.
Logged In: NO
De discussion is about: What is the best: make it *possible*
to have a "make uninstall" or not?
I don't think including the possubility of a "make
uninstall" is worse than make it not possible.
And if you don't like it, just don't use it. Including a
"make uninstall" don't force the users to use it.
Logged In: NO
The discussion is about: What is the best: make it possible
to have a "make uninstall" or make it impossible to use
"make uninstall"?
I don't think including the possubility of a "make
uninstall" is worse than make it not possible.
And if you don't like it, just don't use it. Including a
"make uninstall" don't force the users to use it.
Logged In: YES
user_id=1814
I'm not against the feature. But the suggestion by gicco is
superior.
Please make a patch.
Make sure it only deletes files that would be installed.
Logged In: YES
user_id=552894
On Linux I'm using only --prefix too.
On FreeBSD I'm using --exec-prefix and --datadir. On FreeBSD
some libraries reside below /usr/local. I'm no more sure but
I guess that's the reason I use two prefix options.
Nobody is talking about RPM and DEB. So he's prabably using
Linux. But he didn't mention explicitly.
Logged In: NO
Yep, I'm running GNU/Linux.
I'm not against doing it by hand, i only think the option of
"make uninstall" would be nice.
Sorry for my trial-post.
Logged In: YES
user_id=645378
FWIW, I use stow (which was mentioned in an earlier post)
(http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/stow.html). I try to
compile all software that I install, and I find stow a
lifesaver. It allows me to install each new piece of
software in its own directory and creating symlinks to
/usr/local/bin /usr/local/lib, etc, so that deleting it is
simply a matter deleting that directory.
"make uninstall" is fine, except that you'd have to keep the
original packages to use it, and - more importantly - you
can't have an old version of the software stored.
btw - I have the following alias in my .bashrc to make
adding the --prefix configure argument automatic:
alias ./configure='./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/$(
echo `pwd` | sed -e s#.*/##g)'
Logged In: YES
user_id=71763
I use checkinstall to make rpms directly (and effortlessly!)
from source compiles. It will create a Slackware, RPM or
Debian compatible packages that can be easily
installed/uninstalled.
http://checkinstall.izto.org/index.php