Re: Building 22.1, on Ubuntu

[Dave Pawson]

On 09/09/2007, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:

> While this is all correct and sound advice, I doubt it will be useful for
> Dave as it will require understanding that would appear to be way past his
> level at present (this is not meant to be a harsh or negative criticism).

Quite true.
I've used ./configure; make install before, but if it failed, the package
wasn't installed. Period.
Just that emacs is worth the effort.

..... summarised as rtfm.

Yes Tim. Agreed. But kindly said.
"However, it really seems that the OP isn't doing the minimum
sensible things, such as reading the documentation."
For which I'm sorry. This thread is far too long .

It's Sunday, I'm quiet so I'll go do some reading.
Maybe even re-install the OS from scratch and start again.

<tc>Dave, if your choice is either build from sources or revert back to emacs
21, my question would be why not use the available emacs 22 debian package
and save yourself the headaches? </tc>
For the same reason it doesn't work from source Tim. Ubuntu seemingly
must fit on a single CD, so the packages that I need to run
http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty-backports/editors/emacs22 are quite
likely the same. I tried it... and it failed.
/me Wonder if my 'trying it' was simply trying it as root without X support,
i.e. it would fail regardless.



<tc>Also note that switching to another distro won't help - you have the same
issues on nearly all GNU Linux distros. Most distros only install the stuff
required to run programs, not the stuff required to build them. Its assumed
that anyone who is building software will know which development libraries
they need to install. Last time I used RedHat, they also used the libxyz
and libxyz-dev type convention with their RPMs. This is not a ubuntu or
debian specific issue (though package names can vary slightly).</tc>

I came from Fedora Core 6/7. There, since they are, on principle, ahead
of the game, and use a full 6 CD install, emacs is currently 22.1, so I've
never had to do this previously for emacs. OK, I've been spoiled.


<tc>/configure --with-x-toolkit=gtk \
   --with-sound=yes --prefix=/usr/local

however, I think the default x-toolkit setting is now gtk, so it should not
be required and the default install prefix is /usr/local, so that one
probably isn't required either. I like to be explicit, which is why I
include them.</tc>

emacs has sound! Sheesh.
Tim, I think you're wrong about the latter though. When I built prior
to having --with-x-toolkit=gtk, I wasn't offered anything. I guess the default
is nox? I'll stand corrected on that, but that's what I found.

<tc>Note that if your building from CVS, for the first build, you need make
bootstrap. See INSTALL-CVS</tc>

I wondered what that 'make bootstrap' was all about. It produced
dozens of warnings. Yes Tim, I'll rtfm :-)

<tc>X uses a 'magic cookie' to control access to the X display. Essentially,
you have to have this cookie (usually stored in .Xauthority in order to
write to access the display. If you run emacs and it cannot open the X
display, it will run in text mode.

I think its generally a bad idea to build and test software as root if its
not required. I always build emacs as a normal user and test it as that
user. I only switch to root to run make install as that process needs root
privs to write to /usr/local.</tc>

Thanks for the full story Tim.
IMHO this is somethat that needs to be in red, in the install document.
Your key advice there seems to be build and test as a normal user.
I guess there's no reason not to. Then switch to root for the install.
Not knowing other distro's, I wonder if Fedora is odd in allowing
X from root. I have always done su - to do root based tasks. Ubuntu
is odd to me in insisting on no root user (or password, at least).
I guess I'd have finished in half the time had I been testing as a normal
user. Sigh.

<tc>I'm always amazed at how, in this day of open source, people will download
software from some unknown/untrusted source and then build and run it as
root for the first time.</tc>

I guess I've been lucky for the last 20 years Tim.
I only judge the source, be it a person
with a floppy or a website.


Many thanks Tim. And points taken.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk