lout-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: makefile uninstall somewhat aggressive?


From: Michael Piotrowski
Subject: Re: makefile uninstall somewhat aggressive?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:28:11 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.19 (berkeley-unix)

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 ;-)

> 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.

>> 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
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.

>> 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.

Greetings

-- 
Michael Piotrowski, M.A.                               <address@hidden>
Public key at <http://www.dynalabs.de/mxp/pubkey.txt>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]