#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)

Discussion

  • Hanspeter Roth

    Hanspeter Roth - 2003-07-31

    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

     
  • Marko Macek

    Marko Macek - 2003-08-01

    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

     
  • Marko Macek

    Marko Macek - 2003-08-01
    • assigned_to: nobody --> captnmark
    • status: open --> open-wont-fix
     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    OK, it is possible to do it by hand, but isn't it better to
    make it possible to "make uninstall" ?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    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.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    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.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    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.

     
  • Marko Macek

    Marko Macek - 2003-08-01

    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.

     
  • Marko Macek

    Marko Macek - 2003-08-01
    • labels: 319566 --> 419779
     
  • Hanspeter Roth

    Hanspeter Roth - 2003-08-01

    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.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    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.

     
  • Owen Marshall

    Owen Marshall - 2003-08-04

    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)'

     
  • Tom Lisjac

    Tom Lisjac - 2003-08-14

    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

     
  • Marko Macek

    Marko Macek - 2005-06-28
    • labels: 419779 -->
    • assigned_to: captnmark --> nobody
     

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks