./configure command

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 03:25 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 00:06 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > 
> >>Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> > Once again, I say: You, want to build a source from sources, you, the
> > installer, are better off writing an rpm spec for a package you want to
> > install, instead of blindly running a "configure && make install", if
> > you want to avoid trouble.
> > 
> > If this is beyond your knowledge, you can use such situations as
> > occasion to learn doing it. If you don't want to do it, take the
> > situation as granted: The package is not available.
> 
> All I can say is that you seem to have an attitude which precludes
> rational discussion. What someone puts on his own machine,
> why, and how it gets there is his own choice to make.
Yes, it's your freedom to give your 3 year old child a loaded gun and
let it play with it. A "configure && make install" run as root is of a
comparable quality.

> >> The stuff I build normally eventually winds up on
> >>machines which don't even have an OS at all, let alone RPM,
> >>and frequently have less than 1K of memory. And building a
> >>cross-assembler or a cross-compiler which I want to run under
> >>MSDOS, Linux, and Windows is not suitable for putting into an
> >>RPM. I don't want to have to port RPM to MSDOS and maintain it
> >>myself, thank you.
> > 
> > We are talking about Fedora here. The tool to package and install
> > packages on Fedora is rpm.
> 
> There is not a "the tool to package and install on Fedora". There
> is a preferred tool.
Your opinion. If he wants to avoid trouble, he's better off not
listening to you.

> > Other target OSes and distributions have other tools and use other kinds
> > of packages. These are completely off-topic, here.
> 
> The topic here (drift aside) is how this fellow can accomplish
> a certain goal on his machine, not how you can tell him how
> to administer his machine. is the answer.

> "Get the originator to build an RPM for you,
> or learn how to do it yourself, or just do without." is not.
Your opinion. If he wants to avoid trouble, he's better off not
listening to you.

> >>What a parochial attitude. Use my tools or eat **** and die.
> > 
> > You apparently haven't understood anything. 
> 
> I understand that you want to control what other people do with
> their own machines.
No, .. I want to help him to avoid damage from himself.

He wants to para-glide and you are telling him to jump off the hill with
a couple sewed bed sheets. This could occasionally work on an average
dune, but will kill you for sure elsewhere.

> If you want a package to a package for an OS, you have to take the OS's
> > native package administration tools into account. The safest way is to
> > utilize the system's native packaging - In case of Fedora this is rpm.
> 
> That is generally true, though not universlly. One can get into trouble
> if a ./configure + make install is done badly. 
If you don't build as root, it can't.

> The same thing is true for a badly made RPM. 
Yes, but the likelihood of breaking your system during building an rpm
is magnitudes away from that of a naive "configure && make install".

>  It can clobber anything on the machine just
> like ./configure. I have personally experienced that.
Don't build as root.

>  When I have used
> ./configure for install packages, I always put in there a prefix which
> installs either in my own home directory, or into /usr/local. And I
> haven't gotten into any trouble, because I know where I put things.
One classical urban legend:

Installing to /usr/local "logically" overrides their counterparts
in /usr should a file exist in both places. If you locally install a
vital system component to /usr/local, your system is very likely to
become soon broken and unusable.

=> Installation to /usr/local is not harmless.

> With RPM, one *doesn't* have control over where things go.
You have. If building an rpm as non-root, you can't override system
files during the built. When installing an rpm package, the
rpm-installer will raise errors and in general will refuse to install
such a package.

>  One has
> slightly more control over being able to uninstall. But if a bad RPM
> overwrites a file, it is gone.
Normally, an rpm does not overwrite any file.

> > If you don't, you're off-limits and on your own, independent of the OS.
> 
> Eh? I'll take that to mean that if he doesn't follow your guidelines,
> then you are unwilling to help him out if he gets into trouble.

Nonsense. Of cause there are many ways to achieve a goal, but then
you've got to know what you're doing. Most people aren't and therefore
almost certainly _will_ fall into pitfalls, they are not aware about.

All I do is to tell you: If you want to avoid trouble, you're better off
packaging packages as rpms on rpm based systems.


Ralf

-- 
Registered Linux User # 26	http://counter.li.org