On Saturday 22 November 2003 10:00 pm, Patrick Burnett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Not that I expect to be swayed one way or the other here, but...
> I'm curious to see what other users think of using either the 'make'
> commands or 'pkg_add' for compiling and installing software. I'm
> admittedly a bit of a newbie, and I've tried it both ways, after
> CVSup-ing the source and ports of course. In most cases 'pkg_add' seems
> to work better, but the problem solver in me wants to see 'make all
> install clean' and its brethren work at least once. Am I to understand
> that 'make' and its accompanying command options will download source,
> dependencies, needed libs, et al. while compiling, building, and
> installing just like 'pkg_add' does? I'm probably doing something wrong
> such that 'make' isn't playing nice, but I'd still appreciate some
> further insight from more experienced users.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
I've always been one to use the make install method. It's always worked for
me, including downloading most sources and dependencies. Sometimes, after
upgrading from 4.9 to 5.0, for example, I had to install certain things
manually, from ports, such as GTK+ and gettext.
Eric F Crist
AdTech Integrated Systems, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"