`make uninstall' is not documented in the `INSTALL' files

[Roberto Bagnara]

I tried hard to find a list for which the present message is not off-topic:
bug-standards@... is the best option came up with.

Almost all GNU (and lots of non-GNU) projects come with a standard INSTALL
file.  While this explains `make install', it does not cover `make uninstall'
at all.  Since the GNU coding standards say that "All GNU programs should
have the following targets in their Makefiles: [...] `uninstall' [...]"
I wonder why this omission.  I realize I should ask this question to
the maintainer of the INSTALL file, but who is he/she?
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
All the best,

     Roberto

--
Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy
http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/
mailto:bagnara@...

[Karl Berry]

Hi Roberto,

    I tried hard to find a list for which the present message is not
    off-topic:

Thanks for trying.

    bug-standards@... is the best option came up with.

A pretty good guess :).

    I wonder why this omission.  

Despite the coding standards, there are a lot of projects make uninstall
doesn't work for.  Still, it seems it wouldn't hurt to mention it, with
appropriate caveats.

    I realize I should ask this question to the maintainer of the
    INSTALL file, but who is he/she?

As far as I know, the INSTALL file is maintained as part of Automake,
although this is not stated anywhere in the file.  I don't know if there
is a Texinfo source for it any more.

Ralf, I know you're on this list.  Can you advise?

Best,
Karl

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Karl, Roberto,

* Karl Berry wrote on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 12:00:06AM CEST:
>
>     I tried hard to find a list for which the present message is not
>     off-topic:
>
> Thanks for trying.
>
>     bug-standards@... is the best option came up with.
>
> A pretty good guess :).

bug-autoconf would have been good, too.

>     I wonder why this omission.  
>
> Despite the coding standards, there are a lot of projects make uninstall
> doesn't work for.  Still, it seems it wouldn't hurt to mention it, with
> appropriate caveats.

I agree on both counts.  (I can propose a patch if you like, later.)

>     I realize I should ask this question to the maintainer of the
>     INSTALL file, but who is he/she?

Autoconf is.

> As far as I know, the INSTALL file is maintained as part of Automake,
> although this is not stated anywhere in the file.  I don't know if there
> is a Texinfo source for it any more.

Automake only fetches this file from Autoconf, the sources are in
autoconf/doc/install.texi and are, as far as I know, up to date.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Ralf

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello,

Roberto Bagnara suggest in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2007-10/msg00000.html>
that `INSTALL' document the `uninstall' target.  Karl cautioned that it
doesn't work with many packages.  What do you think about this patch?

Cheers,
Ralf

2007-10-08  Ralf Wildenhues  <Ralf.Wildenhues@...>

        * doc/install.texi (Basic Installation): Document `uninstall'.
        * INSTALL: Regenerate.
        Suggestion by Roberto Bagnara.

diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL
index 5458714..e8edf5c 100644
--- a/INSTALL
+++ b/INSTALL
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ The simplest way to compile this package is:
      all sorts of other programs in order to regenerate files that came
      with the distribution.
 
+  6. Often, you can also type `make uninstall' to remove the installed
+     files again.
+
 Compilers and Options
 =====================
 
diff --git a/doc/install.texi b/doc/install.texi
index 5a5d1c1..ad67b92 100644
--- a/doc/install.texi
+++ b/doc/install.texi
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ a @samp{make maintainer-clean} target, but that is intended mainly for
 the package's developers.  If you use it, you may have to get all sorts
 of other programs in order to regenerate files that came with the
 distribution.
+
+@item
+Often, you can also type @samp{make uninstall} to remove the installed
+files again.
 @end enumerate
 
 @node Compilers and Options

[Roberto Bagnara]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Roberto Bagnara suggest in
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2007-10/msg00000.html>
> that `INSTALL' document the `uninstall' target.  Karl cautioned that it
> doesn't work with many packages.  What do you think about this patch?
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> 2007-10-08  Ralf Wildenhues  <Ralf.Wildenhues@...>
>
> * doc/install.texi (Basic Installation): Document `uninstall'.
> * INSTALL: Regenerate.
> Suggestion by Roberto Bagnara.
>
> diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL
> index 5458714..e8edf5c 100644
> --- a/INSTALL
> +++ b/INSTALL
> @@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ The simplest way to compile this package is:
>       all sorts of other programs in order to regenerate files that came
>       with the distribution.
>  
> +  6. Often, you can also type `make uninstall' to remove the installed
> +     files again.
> +
>  Compilers and Options
>  =====================
>  
> diff --git a/doc/install.texi b/doc/install.texi
> index 5a5d1c1..ad67b92 100644
> --- a/doc/install.texi
> +++ b/doc/install.texi
> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ a @samp{make maintainer-clean} target, but that is intended mainly for
>  the package's developers.  If you use it, you may have to get all sorts
>  of other programs in order to regenerate files that came with the
>  distribution.
> +
> +@item
> +Often, you can also type @samp{make uninstall} to remove the installed
> +files again.
>  @end enumerate
>  
>  @node Compilers and Options
>

Looks good to me.
Thanks!

     Roberto

--
Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy
http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/
mailto:bagnara@...

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello,

* Roberto Bagnara wrote on Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:21:16PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Roberto Bagnara suggest in
> > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2007-10/msg00000.html>
> > that `INSTALL' document the `uninstall' target.  Karl cautioned that it
> > doesn't work with many packages.  What do you think about this patch?
[...]
> Looks good to me.
> Thanks!

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:19:54PM CEST:
> How about you commit it (to give you some git push experience), along with an
> update to the THANKS file.

Thanks to both of you, committed.  Not sure who you would like me to add
to THANKS, both Karl and Roberto are mentioned already.

Cheers,
Ralf