On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 13:33 -0500, John Dennis wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 11:46 -0500, John Dennis wrote: > > > > > Brian Ertel wrote: > > > > > > > John, > > > > > > > > You are right, but the dir where the old radius was "make installed" is > > > > gone. That is the original folder that was created after unzipping and > > > > installing the old ver. Of radius is gone. Is there anything else I > > > > can do? > > > > > > > > > > > You can recreate the tree, follow the same steps you did the first time > > > which was probably something like this: > > > > > > % tar xf freeradius-server.tar > > > % cd freeradius-server > > > % ./configure #passing the exact same parameters you used the first time > > > % make > > > > > > Now instead of "make install" run make "make uninstall" > > > > > > Then you can delete the source tree. > > > > > > BTW, all this is basic Linux/Unix administration, the freeradius-users > > > list is not an appropriate place to learn these topics. > > > > > ---- > > seems to me that it attempts to load the files he installed from tarball > > that are in /usr/local/[bin|sbin] and that is what he needs to clean out > > before he ever attempts to use anything installed from rpm > > > Exactly. FWIW the paths are embedded as a consequence of parameters > passed to configure. When you build from an SRPM the spec file passes > different parameters to configure than the default configure > parameters, thus the two installs will not likely conflict, but it's > possible. Therefore the best course of action, to assure there are no > conflicts and to reduce the inevitable confusion of having multiple > copies installed in various locations is to remove the first > installation and then do an RPM install. > > An install copies many files into a variety of locations, the only way > to assure you've removed all the files to use the same code to > uninstall as was used to perform the install in the first place. > > BTW, this is one reason why using the package manager on the target > system (e.g. rpm, apt, dpkg, etc.) is always preferred because they > know how to install and uninstall and keep a system consistent. When > you go behind the back of these package managers by installing things > manually (e.g. make install) you run the risk of screwing your system > up unless you have advanced skills and know exactly what you're doing. ---- and 'make uninstall' often is simply not implemented in tarballs anyway.
Seeing the OP trying to install tarballs and rpm packages seems to be a lesson in futility and I always opt for rpms if at all possible, just for the reasons that you mentioned. I actually rebuilt the F10 rpms before I saw your wiki page and like about the day before you announced the 2.1.3 package in testing so I'm sorry I didn't provide any useful feedback to either. Craig - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
