GNU bug report logs -
#49878
Emacs Tarball Should Include Uninstall Script
Previous Next
Full log
Message #14 received at 49878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> We have "make uninstall" -- why isn't that what's being requested
> here?
Oh, didn't know about that. Hm... Yeah, I guess it should do the
trick. But it's not included in the tarball, I think? Which was the
request, and I'm still sceptical about doing that, because it looks
pretty dangerous.
>> I've never understood why any user would say "make install" at all --
>> Emacs works just fine without saying "make install". Users should just
>> run it from where it was compiled.
>
> The idea is that after "make install" you can delete the source tree.
>
> Also, without installing, the important executables will not
> necessarily be on PATH, so you cannot easily invoke them without using
> a full absolute file name.
>
> Finally, this is a standard Make target that everyone expects (other
> packages don't always work 100% correctly when invoked from the source
> tree).
That's sort of my point -- there's a ton of software out there that
doesn't work unless you install it first. Emacs is not one of those, so
people think they have to install it to use it.
I wonder whether it'd be practical to put a "Really install? You don't
have to" in the "make install" target. Probably not.
I think what most people who're futzing around with Emacs git would want
is just to have a target that makes some symlinks from /usr/local/bin
(or whatever) to the current build directory so that emacs/emacsclient
lands in $PATH. I don't think the size of the source matters most, so
my guess is that few people delete the source tree after "make install".
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 350 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.