|
From: Dan K. <da...@ke...> - 2003-09-07 15:06:56
|
Greg Hosler wrote: > On 07-Sep-2003 Dan Kegel wrote: >>Steve G wrote: >>>>If I were you, I'd install a fresh copy of the latest >>>>gnu make just to see if that made a difference. >>> >>>I wouldn't. If you install a tarball over an rpm, you might get >>>some of the directories wrong and then you have files all over >>>the place that aren't tracked by rpm. >> >>Yes, that would be messy. However, if you install the new >>make in /usr/local, there's no conflict, as it turns out. >>And /usr/local is the default install destination, so it's >>fairly safe. > > As far as I am aware, *no* distribution, has *ever* installed make, or any other > major utility (or minor, for that matter) into /usr/local. That's right; that's why it's safe to install a 'make' compiled from sources into /usr/local. When you run 'configure' on the make sources, you'll see that the default installation path is /usr/local, so it's quite safe to build from sources if you just use the defaults; it's can't conflict with your system's make. Since two people seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote, here are the steps I'm suggesting: ------------- wget http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/make/make-3.80.tar.bz2 tar -xjvf make-3.80.tar.bz2 cd make-3.80 ./configure make su -c "make install" -------- This will install make to /usr/local; I just did it, and verified that's where it goes. You can then use the new make instead of the system make by putting /usr/local/bin in front of your PATH: PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH And voila, you're trying out make-3.80 without affecting your system's copy of make or its data files. You can revert to the system make just by setting your PATH back. - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045 |