Stephen Turner wrote:
> Aside: I've never been clear why people expect "make install" anyway on a
> Linux system (I understand it on Unix). On my Debian Linux system I have
> never compiled anything myself. Everything I have ever wanted is provided as
> a .deb, so I never have type "make" at all. Isn't the same true of other
> Linux distributions? Why not just use the .rpm? Can someone enlighten me?
Slackware doesn't provide packages. Cobalt systems are build on RedHat and use RedHat
rpms. Corel Linux
is build on Debian and uses debs.
Even though Analog has Debian and RedHat bundles, I've built it from scratch on the
Linux boxes I've
done. I wasn't aware of the bundles until only a few months ago.
But I've noticed many times that installing with .configure; make; make install is
faster and simpler
than packages. Usually because the source files are easier to find than the package.
Also, I have often
found programs I wish to install that don't have packages and so have gotten used to
the Unix procedure.
For that matter I've been slow to adopt Perl Package Manager on NT systems as well,
which is really the
same idea.
I hope that's at least somewhat insightful.
Jeremy Wadsack
Wadsack-Allen Digital Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
