SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] installing 'file': edit Makefile.am or Makefile.in ?
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] installing 'file': edit Makefile.am or Makefile.in ?
- From: "Voytek Eymont" <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:35:24 +1000 (EST)
- Reply-to: lists@xxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.1
On Mon, October 15, 2007 9:42 am, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Unless you *really* know what you are doing, you should always
> install the package provided by your distribution instead of compiling it
I tried, as far I can tell, an up to date version is not available
>> which Makefile, '.am' or '.in' ?
> Did you read the INSTALL file?
acinclude.m4 config.h.in depcomp ltmain.sh Makefile.in python
aclocal.m4 config.sub doc magic missing README
ChangeLog configure install-sh MAINT mkinstalldirs src
config.guess configure.in LEGAL.NOTICE Makefile.am PORTING
> It will tell you to do something like:
> make sudo make install
OK, that was the magic word, 'configure', THANKS
compiled/installed, thanks !
> If you don't compile packages from source regularly you will almost
> certainly be missing required build tools or dependancies.
>> # whereis file
>> file: /usr/bin/file /usr/local/bin/file
> You have separate 'file' executables in /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin.
> This will usually result in confusion.
yes, but both were same version
HOWEVER, now, they're NO LONGER same:
if I copy the (new) from /usr/local/bin/file to /usr/bin/file am I likely
to cause problems...?