[libvirt] [PATCH 4/4] docs: Don't leave any documentation behind

[Michal Privoznik]

On 20.04.2016 16:37, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:57:25AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/19/2016 10:48 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 19.04.2016 16:38, John Ferlan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/19/2016 09:50 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>> Our uninstall script is not exact counterpart of install one.
>>>>> Therefore we are leaving couple of files behind. This should not
>>>>> happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  docs/Makefile.am | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 'install-data-local:', there's a :
>>>>
>>>>         $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)
>>>>
>>>> why not just the far more all encompassing:
>>>>
>>>>    rm -rf $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>    rm -rf $(DESTDIR)$(DEVHELP_DIR)
>>>>
>>>> Rather than picking each part we install to uninstall? and missing
>>>> something in the future or even now.  Do the 'html' or 'internals'
>>>> directories gets removed?  And then of course the toplevel directory
>>>> which we created.
>>>>
>>>> IOW: There's no corollary for the:
>>>>
>>>>         $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)
>>>>         $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)/html
>>>>         $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR)/internals
>>>>         $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(DEVHELP_DIR)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. That's the other way of doing that. It's just that if users put
>>> anything in $(DESTDIR)$(HTML_DIR) it will be removed by uninstall. But I
>>> can propose v2 if you want.
>>>
>>
>> I see there are other 'rf -rm' usages in other "clean" labels...
>>
>> I don't have a strong feeling either way - perhaps there's other
>> opinionated folks that would like to chime in.  If no one chimes in,
>> then I'm OK with what's here...
>>
> 
> rm -rf is fine with me and I believe with others as well, so ACK from me.

Thank you both guys. I've pushed these.

Michal