|
From: | Kevin Hawkins |
Subject: | glibc 2.3.3 prefix /usr/local confustion |
Date: | Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:59:09 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 |
Greetings and thanks again to Paul Jarc for all the help, I'm through the 'configure' phase and am now at the stage where I could run 'make', however a question has stuck in my mind and I'd like to get some feedback on it. If I run this command: ../glibc-2.3.3/configure \ --with-add-ons \ --enable-add- \ --with-headers=/usr/src/linux-2.4.16/include I get an error/warning from configure: *** On GNU/Linux systems the GNU C Library should not be installed into *** /usr/local since this might make your system totally unusable. *** We strongly advise to use a different prefix. For details read the FAQ. *** If you really mean to do this, run configure again using the extra *** parameter `--disable-sanity-checks'. I certainly don't want to make my system "totally unusable", so I check the FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/FAQ.html#s-2.2): <>2.2. How do I configure GNU libc so that the essential libraries like libc.so go into /lib and the other into /usr/lib? >{UD,AJ} Like all other GNU packages GNU libc is designed to use a base directory and install all files relative to this. The default is /usr/local, because this is safe (it will not damage the system if installed there). If you wish to install GNU libc as the primary C library on your system, set the base directory to /usr (i.e. run configure --prefix=/usr <other_options>). Note that this can damage your system; see question 2.3 for details. Some systems like Linux have a filesystem standard which makes a difference between essential libraries and others. Essential libraries are placed in /lib because this directory is required to be located on the same disk partition as /. The /usr subtree might be found on another partition/disk. If you configure for Linux with --prefix=/usr, then this will be done automatically. So, information comming from configure says that installing to '/usr/local' could make my system "totally unusable", but information comming from the FAQ says that installing to '/usr/local' "is safe". Which is true? For more confusion, read on. Here is part of question/answer 2.3: 2.3. How should I avoid damaging my system when I install GNU libc?{ZW} If you wish to be cautious, do not configure with --prefix=/usr. If you don't specify a prefix, glibc will be installed in /usr/local, where it will probably not break anything. (If you wish to be certain, set the prefix to something like /usr/local/glibc2 which is not used for anything.)So now I have even more information from the FAQ which is slightly contrary to all the rest ("/usr/local, where it will probably not break anything"). Taking this '--prefix=' advice, I tried this command: ../glibc-2.3.3/configure \ --with-add-ons \ --enable-add- \ --prefix=/usr/local/glibc-2.3.3 \ --with-headers=/usr/src/linux-2.4.16/include And all was well; configure exited with no errors or warnings. Should I go with this solution? Thanks for your time & help. -- -Hawk 818-687-5153 address@hidden http://jedihawk.com/ |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |