15 Aug
2005
15 Aug
'05
10:14 p.m.
Mike Jewell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 07:13 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
well, imagine you have number of programs installed this way, to
access them in easy way you'd have to make sure that they are all in
your path, that the shared libs are found by linker, the include files
by c/c++ compilers etc.
here's where you'd use stow - each well behave package has directory
structure like the unix root (with bin, etc, lib and other directories),
stow creates links so that the whole package is in /usr/local/bin, example:
/opt/something-1.0/bin/program
/opt/something-1.0/bin/anotherProgram
/opt/something-1.0/lib/libsome.so
/opt/something-1.0/doc/something/README.txt
stow will create following links:
/usr/local/bin/program -> /opt/something-1.0/bin/program
/usr/local/bin/anotherProgram -> /opt/something-1.0/bin/anotherProgram
/usr/local/lib/libsome.so -> /opt/something-1.0/lib/libsome.so
/usr/local/doc/something/README.txt ->
/opt/something-1.0/doc/something/README.txt
that way you can just add /use/local/bin to you path (and other libs
as well), you kinda have the extra stuff inciorporated into your system
but at same time you know exactly which file is from which package, you
can use stow to remove the packages etc. So if you want to upgrade to
something 1.1 you just install it into /opt/something-1.1 and use stow
to remove something-1.0 links and create something-1.1 links
I usually don't bother but e.g. I was working at a place where I
didn't have access to root, I wasn't able to install packages so I
installed some software into ~/opt and used stow to create links in
~/local, set up my path and linker search path etc. and it worked very well
e.g. now (at work) I only have few non-essential extra packages (like
mplayer, bashish, x11vnc) so I don't even use stow...
erik
David Cournapeau wrote:
I like this idea of containing it in it's own little world so you can
have different versions installed for testing, etc. But why would you
want links in /usr/local? Wouldn't the --prefix set it all up to run
from the /opt dir?
And what is stow? I don't seem to have that on my CCRMA FC3 distro. On 8/12/05, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
the other option is to install into /opt/package-version (using
./configure --prefix=/opt/package-version), possibly using stow to
create links in /usr/local, in that case the instwallation is completely
independent from your packaging system, you can have multiple versions
installed and control which one is used by either stow or using env
variables etc. >Yes. I thought that seemed odd. Thanks for
verifying.
>***What's the correct way to un-install them now?***
go back into the source code directory you built+installed them from.
type:
make uninstall
you must not have re-run configure with different options since doing
the last make install.
note that in the case of the ultimate screw up (e.g. with JACK), you can
still use this method. suppose you mistakenly did this:
(unpack source tarball)
cd srcdir
./configure
make
make install
(remember that you mean to use --prefix=/usr)
./configure --prefix=/usr
make
make install
(remember that you shouldn't mix tarballs and packages)
looks bad now - you have two versions of the software, one under /usr,
one under /usr/local.
its ok, just do this:
cd srcdir
./configure
make uninstall
./configure --prefix
make uninstall
and its all cleaned up.
--p "no sir, never had to do that, no sir, never, no sir"
An advice I would add: do not install libraries from source code by
yourself (ie without your package manager knowing it), because it will
cause many problems later, if you do not know exactly what you are
doing.
If you really want to try some new versions from source, you should
use something like checkinstall, which builds a rpm or a .deb from
your sources.
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
The big advantage of this method is that your package manager knows
about what you installed, and where, thus making the uninstall part a
non problem.