From: Rocky Bernstein Date: 2007-12-29T01:39:22+09:00 Subject: Re: Should Ruby1.9 default program suffix be changed? ------=_Part_5985_30024797.1198859966858 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Dec 28, 2007 11:16 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On Dec 28, 2007 4:02 AM, Rocky Bernstein > wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2007 8:37 PM, Dave Thomas wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 27, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner wrote: > > > > > > > It is more the "--program-suffix" which solved the problem. > > > > I use "--program-suffix=3D190", which generates "ruby190", > > > > "rdoc190", "irb190", etc., so no problem can occur. > > > > > > Right, but that's a lot harder to uninstall. > > > > Actually, it wouldn't be if an uninstall Make target were written, and > for > > me that's the bigger lack. If folks want me to try my hand at writing > such a > > target, I'll be happy to (which gives me an opportunity to use/put in = a > > plug for my GNU make tracer/debugger which is probably what I'd use if = I > > were do undertake such a task). > > That only works if an install manifest is written somewhere in the > target tree, Yes, I think something like this is how various packaging systems implement uninstall. > or if you keep the build tree around. Well, the build tree is generally where one runs "make uninstall" from. ;-) ------=_Part_5985_30024797.1198859966858 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Dec 28, 2007 11:16 AM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 4:02 AM, Rocky Bernstein <rocky.bernstein@gmail.com> wro= te:
> On Dec 27, 2007 8:37 PM, Dave Thomas < dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 27, 2007,= at 7:24 PM, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner wrote:
> >
> > >= It is more the "--program-suffix" which solved the problem.
> > > I use "--program-suffix=3D190", which generates &q= uot;ruby190",
> > > "rdoc190", "irb190"= ;, etc., so no problem can occur.
> >
> > Right, but that= 's a lot harder to uninstall.
>
> Actually, it wouldn't be if an uninstall Make target w= ere written, and for
> me that's the bigger lack. If folks want m= e to try my hand at writing such a
> target, I'll be happy to (wh= ich  gives me an opportunity to use/put in a
> plug for my GNU make tracer/debugger which is probably what I'= d use if I
> were do undertake such a task).

That only w= orks if an install manifest is written somewhere in the
target tree,=20

Yes, I think something like this is how various packa= ging systems implement uninstall.
 
or if you keep the build tree around.

Well, the build = tree is generally where one runs "make uninstall" from. ;-)

------=_Part_5985_30024797.1198859966858--