Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:32:05 +0000 From: Daniela <dgw@liwest.at> To: Patrick Burnett <pb1170@charter.net>, freebsd-config@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make vs. pkg_add Message-ID: <200311282332.05841.dgw@liwest.at> In-Reply-To: <1069559847.10538.14.camel@localhost> References: <1069559847.10538.14.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 23 November 2003 03:57, 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. I always use 'make install' for all software installations, even the big things like KDE. I just want to have debug symbols compiled in everywhere, it's really convenient. An additional 'clean' deletes the source code after compilation, you should decide fo yourself what's better. If you want to learn programming you might want to leave some source code around, as some people learn better from examples. And yes, you don't have to care for dependencies etc. yourself, make does everything for you. Should you still have problems, please post the error messages you're getting. Regards, Daniela
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311282332.05841.dgw>