When I uninstall an application using make uninstall it leaves over some empty directories which make install had created, e.g. such as /usr/share/foo/ and its subdirectories such as /usr/share/foo/applications, etc.
I found via Google, that automake's generated uninstall target does not automatically delete empty directories because it does not know if the the application owns the directories (e.g. it created it during make install), or borrowed it (e.g. the directory existed during make install).
Currently none of my make files has a definitive uninstall target, make implicitly seems to know which files it has to remove. How can I teach it to also remove the folders in question?
Here is the solution, I just had to register an uninstall-hook target like this, and then perform the necessary tasks, for removing the directories. In this example ${pkgdatadir} would expand to /usr/share/foo. The if-then is necesseary as otherwise the make distcheck target would fail.
uninstall-hook:
if test -d ${pkgdatadir}/applications; then rmdir ${pkgdatadir}/applications; fi
if test -d ${pkgdatadir}; then rmdir ${pkgdatadir}; fi
The uninstall-hook rule will be called after the uninstall target has run.
The above is excessively verbose. Here's a shorter version:
Register an uninstall-hook target, and then perform the necessary tasks, for removing the directories. In this example ${pkgdatadir} would expand to /usr/share/foo. The minus sign in front of rmdir tells make to ignore the return code (so that if the directory isn't empty, make won't fail) Note that the minus sign can be used in front of any make target command.
uninstall-hook:
-rmdir ${pkgdatadir}/applications
-rmdir ${pkgdatadir}
The uninstall-hook rule will be called after the uninstall target has run.
Here's more about the minus sign: What do #, - and + do as prefixes to recipe lines in Make?
Related
Having used CMake, I've become used to out-of-source builds, which are encouraged with CMake. How can out-of-source builds be done with Cargo?
Using in-source-builds again feels like a step backwards:
Development tools need to be configured to ignore paths. Sometimes multiple plugins and development tools - especially using VIM or Emacs!
Some tools can't be configured to easily hide build files. While dotfiles are typically hidden, they will still show Cargo.lock and target/, worse still, recursively exposing their contents.
Deleting un-tracked files to remove everything outside of version control, typically to cleanup editor temp files or some test output, can backfire if you forgot to add a new file to version control and don't manually check the file list properly before deleting them.
Dependencies are downloaded into your source code path, sometimes adding *.rs files in the target directory as part of building indirect deps, so operating on all *.rs files may accidentally pickup other files which aren't in a hidden directory, so might not be ignored even after development tools have been configured.
While it's possible to work around all these issues, I'd rather just have an external build path and keep the source directory pristine.
You can specify the directory of the target/ folder either via configuration file (key build.target-dir) or environment variable (CARGO_TARGET_DIR). Here is an example using a configuration file:
Suppose you want to have a directory ~/work/ in which you want to save the Cargo project (~/work/foo/) and next to it the target directory (~/work/my-target/).
$ cd ~/work
$ cargo new --bin foo
$ mkdir .cargo
$ $EDITOR .cargo/config
Then insert the following into the configuration file:
[build]
target-dir = "./my-target"
If you then build in your normal Cargo project directory:
$ cd foo
$ cargo build
You will notice that there is no target/ dir, but everything is in ~/work/my-target/.
However, the Cargo.lock is still saved inside the Cargo project directory, but that kinda makes sense. For executables, you should check the Cargo.lock file into your git! For libraries, you shouldn't. I guess having to ignore one file is better than having to ignore an entire folder.
Lastly, there are a few caveats to changing the target-dir, which are listed in the PR which introduced the feature.
While useful manually setting this up isn't all that convenient, I wanted to be able to build multiple crates within a source tree, having all of them out-of-source, something that ../target-dir configuration option wouldn't achieve.
Helper utility for convenient out-of-source builds
Using the environment variable I've written a small utility to wrap cargo, so it automatically builds out-of-source, supporting crates both at the top-level, on in a subdirectory of the source tree.
Thanks to Lukas for pointing out CARGO_TARGET_DIR and target-dir configuration option.
What I really wanted was a dynamic CARGO_TARGET_DIR that changes relative to where I am.
This bash alias puts all builds in a mirrored directory structure, e.g. instead of putting target into ~/mydir/myproj it puts in into ~/rustbuild/mydir/myproj
alias cargo='CARGO_TARGET_DIR=$(echo $PWD | sed "s|$HOME|$HOME/rustbuild|g") cargo'
You could also make your rustbuild directory hidden.
I would like to edit an existing software to add a new source file (Source.cpp).
But, I can't manage the compilation process (it seems to be automake and it looks very complicated).
The software (iperf 2: https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/files/?source=navbar) is compiled using a classical ./configure make then make install.
If I just add the file to the corresponding source and include directory, I got this error message:
Settings.cpp:(.text+0x969) : undefined reference to ...
It looks like the makefile isn't able to produce the output file associated with my new source file (Source.cpp). So, I probably need to indicate it manually somewhere.
I searched a bit in the project files and it seemed that the file to edit was: "Makefile.am".
I added my source to the variable iperf_SOURCES in that file but it didn't workded.
Could you help me to find the file where I need to indicate my new source file (it seems a pretty standard compilation scheme but I never used automake softwares and this one seems very complicated).
Thank you in advance
This project is built with the autotools, as you already figured out.
The makefiles are built by automake. It takes its input in files that usually have a am file name extension.
The iperf program is built by the makefile generated from src/Makefile.am. This is indicated by:
bin_PROGRAMS = iperf
All (actually this is a simplification, but which holds in this case) source files of a to be built binary are in the corresponding name_SOURCES variable, thus in this case iperf_SOURCES. Just add your source file to the end of that list, like so (keeping their formatting):
iperf_SOURCES = \
Client.cpp \
# lines omitted
tcp_window_size.c \
my_new_file.c
Now, to reflect this change in any future generated src/Makefile you need to run automake. This will modify src/Makefile.in, which is a template that is used by config.sub at the end of configure to generate the actual makefile.
Running automake can happen in various ways:
If you already have makefiles that were generated after an configure these should take care of rebuilding themselves. This seems to fail sometimes though!
You could run automake (in the top level directory) by hand. I've never done this, as there is the better solution to...
Run autoreconf --install (possibly add --force to the arguments) in the top level directory. This will regenerate the entire build system, calling all needed programs such as autoheader, autoconf and of course automake. This is my favorite solution.
The later two options require calling configure again, IMO ideally doing an out of source built:
# in top level dir
mkdir build
cd build
../configure # arguments
make # should now also compile and link your new source file
What should I add to my top-level Makefile.am to cause make check to run a custom command before entering any subdirectory?
Here's some context:
When our make check process enters each subdirectory in our source code tree, it builds that subdirectory's unit test binary, copies the binary to a target hardware board using scp, and runs the binary remotely on the target using ssh. We have more developers than we have boards, so we're sharing, and the target platform only has one user ID set up, so if two or more of us run make check at the same time, we clobber each other's unit test binaries on the target.
What I'd like is for make check to use a unique subdirectory on the target for each developer, probably in the home directory of the target's only user. Before anything else is done during a make check run, I'll need to ensure that this subdirectory exists.
I'm hoping I can add a command along the lines of ssh <board-ip> mkdir -p <unique-dirname-based-on-user> to a variable or target in my top-level Makefile.am which will cause that command to be run at the start of a make check run, before any subdirectory is entered and any copying happens.
simply make check-recursive depend on a target you want to execute.
e.g. add the following to your Makefile.am:
check-recursive: pre-check-recursive
.PHONY=pre-check-recursive
pre-check-recursive:
#echo "called before running check recursively (YOUR CODE HERE)"
I'm creating a simple RPM installer, I just have to copy files to a directory structure I create in the %install process.
The %install process is fine, I create the following folder /opt/company/application/ with the command mkdir -p %{buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} and then I proceed to copy the files and subdirectories from my package. I've tried to install it and it works.
The doubt I have comes when uninstalling. I want to remove the folder /opt/company/application/ and I thought you're supposed to use %{buildroot} anywhere when referencing the install location. Because my understanding is the user might have a different structure and you can't assume that rmdir /opt/company/%{name}/ will work. Using that command in the %postun section deletes succesfully the directories whereas using rmdir ${buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} doesn't delete the folders.
My question is, shouldn't you be using ${buildroot} in the %postun in order to get the proper install location? If that's not the case, why?
Don't worry about it. If you claim the directory as your own in the %files section, RPM will handle it for you.
FYI, %{buildroot} probably won't exist on the target machine.
I have several hundred files in a non-flat directory structure. My Makefile lists each sourcefile, which, given the size of the project and the fact that there are multiple developers on the project, can create annoyances when we forget to put a new one in or take out the old ones. I'd like to generalize my Makefile so that make can simply build all .cpp and .h files without me having to specify all the filenames, given some generic rules for different types of files.
My question: given a large number of files in a directory with lots of subfolders, how do I tell make to build them all without having to specify each and every subfolder as part of the path? And how do I make it so that I can do this with only one Makefile in the root directory?
EDIT: this almost answers my question, but it requires that you specify all filenames :\
I'm sure a pure-gmake solution is possible, but using an external command to modify the makefile, or generate an external one (which you include in your makefile) is probably much simpler.
Something along the lines of:
all: myprog
find_sources:
zsh -c 'for x in **/*.cpp; echo "myprog: ${x/.cpp/.o}" >> deps.mk'
include deps.mk
and run
make find_sources && make
note: the exact zsh line probably needs some escaping to work in a make file, e.g. $$ instead of $. It can also be replaced with bash + find.
One way that would be platform independent (I mean independent from shell being in Windows or Linux) is this:
DIRS = relative/path1\
relative/path2
dd = absolute/path/to/subdirectories
all:
#$(foreach dir, $(DIRS), $(MAKE) -C $(dd)$(dir) build -f ../../Makefile ;)
build:
... build here
note that spaces and also the semicolon are important here, also it is important to specify the absolute paths, and also specify the path to the appropriate Makefile at the end (in this case I am using only one Makefile on grandparent folder)
But there is a better approach too which involves PHONY targets, it better shows the progress and errors and stops the build if one folder has problem instead of proceeding to other targets:
.PHONY: subdirs $(DIRS)
subdirs: $(DIRS)
$(DIRS):
$(MAKE) -C $# build -f ../../Makefile
all : prepare subdirs
...
build :
... build here
Again I am using only one Makefile here that is supposed to be applicable to all sub-projects. For each sub-project in the grandchild folder the target "build" is created usinf one Makefile in the root.
I would start by using a combination of the wildcard function:
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Wildcard-Function
VPATH/vpath
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Selective-Search
and the file functions
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#File-Name-Functions
For exclusion (ie: backups, as Jonathan Leffler mentioned), use a seperate folder not in the vpath for backups, and use good implicit rules.
You will still need to define which folders to do to, but not each file in them.
I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, if your Make system compiles and links everything it finds, you'll find out in a hurry if someone has left conflicting junk in the source directories. On the other hand, non-conflicting junk will proliferate and you'll have no easy way of distinguishing it from the live code...
I think it depends on a lot of things specific to your shop, such as source source control system and whether you plan to ever have another project with an overlapping code base. That said, if you really want to compile every source file below a given directory and then link them all, I'd suggest simple recursion: to make objects, compile all source files here, add the resultant objects (with full paths) to a list in the top source directory, recurse into all directories here. To link, use the list.