On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:08:50 Jorge Morais wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT) > > Jon Hardcastle <jd_hardcas...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from > > > http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/ > > > ? > > Have you not yet tried to get python from a binary package? > See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-4669397.html#4669397 > That is both the easiest and cleanest solution I have found so far, > (not that I have researched much, I admit). > And maybe you don't even have to extract the tarball manually with > tar; maybe you can use qmerge from app-portage/portage-utils > (AFAIK it is written in C). > > Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple > python installations. > > Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this > is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess? > > One idea: you can can recompile python with a safe > prefix (such as a subdir of your home), issue make install (not as root, > for increased safety) and see where Python install its files relative to > the prefix, so you can delete them from your system > (to be more careful before deleting a file, you can issue > qfile <FILE> to see if it is owned by a portage-installed package. > And in the end you can emerge python properly, from the sources, so all > the ebuild logic (which is more than just ./configure, make and make > install) gets applied, and you get a Python installation that respects your > USE flags, CFLAGS and other system-specific settings (obviously you don't > get such a system-customized python when you use the binary package from > tinderbox).
make/install with --prefix /usr/local/ That's what it's there for. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
