Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
As we all know, compiling a new software package from source is most often the preferrable solution. However, there is one great thing about RPMs, namely the ability to query ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578

    Source package manager


    As we all know, compiling a new software package from source is most often the preferrable solution. However, there is one great thing about RPMs, namely the ability to query which package a certain belongs to, and to list all files in a package.

    Now, I was thinking that this shouldn't be too hard to implement in the make install scripts.
    Since they usually tend to use the install program to copy files to their final destinations, you should just have to somehow specify to install which package the files belong to, such as adding an environment variable that specifies it.
    You could also modify automake to use another program, but then you would have to re-automake all sources and stuff.

    So what does everyone say? Would it be worth the effort? Any better implementation methods? General comments? I'm all ears.

  2. #2
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    796
    I think that´s a great idea... This is a huge problem for thoose how didnt know linux and have used it for a while. To compile source software i mean..it must be..

    Easier...why should you have to execute ./configure and make... it should be tops 1 or 2 commands.. where it configures the stuff after your hardware and software, and where you can alter flags.. and the it should be a question if you want to install it now if everything has went well.

    The thing about knowing where you compiled files have been put and so on should also be great..if the make uninstall doesnt work, you can always delete all files by hand if you want...brainstorm a little more about this Dolda, its a good idea..

    Regards
    Regards

    Andutt

  3. #3
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    1,319
    As always, Dolda has a great idea. I've recently come to the realization that compiling from source is most often the best way to go since it offers all options. Although packages itself are great, I think you should pitch this idea to the people at GNU's GPL and make this into a standard method.
    The best things in life are free.

  4. #4
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    314
    Also I dont know the amount of work this would take but couldnt you make a autoinstaller program.

    For example a program that analyzes a source package and then dous every thing for you. The program itself can catalog the file entries for each program.

    Just throwing that idea in the mix.
    The computer made me do it!! Slackware and SUSE too Gig\'em WHOOOOP!!
    \"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain amount of tasks, At the rate I\'m going I will never die.\" (I don\'t know)

  5. #5
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    Well, naturally. It's not like I'm going to make some proprietary program of it if I actually were to do it. It remains to be seen if I'm actually going to do it at all. It was actually my friend's idea, but he doesn't have the skill to actually do it, since he isn't a programmer. I do agree that it is a good idea, though, and it would be an excellent opportunity for me to learn DBM programming, but for now I have too many projects on my hands as it is, so it will probably have to wait a couple of days at the very least.

    I do want to know what everyone think is the best solution to the problem, though. Should I rewrite the install program to accept some environment variable which describes the package information in which to record the file information, or should I pursue a more elegant solution, such as adding an extension to GNU automake? The advantage of the first mentioned solution is, of course, that any package (as long as it uses the install program) will be able to use this extension, and for those packages that do use automake, you won't have to re-automake the package. I must say that it isn't really very elegant, though, and I don't know (yet) how it will behave with libtool. I could also do both, of course, with the first method being more of a fallback method for those packages that don't use GNU automake or if you don't want to re-automake the package.

    I have also had more file tracking software in mind. I find that, for example, it could be useful with some software that could track what files are being used by what programs. It could be implemented simply with an extra shared library which you can add with the LD_PRELOAD env var and which then hooks the open and creat calls to libc. It could also be done at kernel level, which would of course have both advantages and disadvantages. What do you think of that idea? The worst about it is of course that it provides a lot of overhead, but you wouldn't have to use it all the time on the other hand. You could just profile your programs once in a while to get the basic idea of their file usage patterns.

  6. #6
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    I didn't see bignester's post until now, so let me take a stand for that as well.
    I didn't originally intend to make a GUI program, since I'm not good at that. Really. Graphical design and user-friendliness are not my areas of interest. It's probably since I have been more or less a professional user my entire life, since I've had and used a computer for more or less my entire life (for those that haven't read it yet in some of my other posts, my father tought me how to program when I was five, so maybe you see what I mean...).

    I couldn't agree less, though, that it would be _extremely_ nice to have at least some kind of progress meter for make builds. The thing is that I would probably have to do a complete rewrite of GNU make in that case, which would be a pretty big undertaking. But it's not like I haven't thought of it. It's mainly that it's not really something that I can undertake by myself, and I haven't really done any community developing yet, so I don't even know how to engage people in that kind of project. I have done all my previous projects alone (except for submitting some patches to various projects, but that doesn't really count anyway).

    To conclude: while I have been thinking of such a program, it is simply too big an undertaking for myself to do presently, especially with all my other projects around, and it's not really my kind of thing anyway, but I might think about it in the future.

  7. #7
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    I just came to a realization. Wouldn't it be nice if this could be integrated with other package managers? In that case you could install a source package over an existing RPM without messing up the entire RPM depency base. Any thoughts?

  8. #8
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    314
    Sounds good I have a question

    I havent compiled any source code lately but any way when ever you type in "make install"

    Dosnt it usually display on the screen the files it is installing.

    I dont reall know if that is right but cant you redirect that to a file.
    The computer made me do it!! Slackware and SUSE too Gig\'em WHOOOOP!!
    \"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain amount of tasks, At the rate I\'m going I will never die.\" (I don\'t know)

  9. #9
    Linux Guru
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Täby, Sweden
    Posts
    7,578
    Not really, what comes up is a list of commands that it runs. Of course, that does include the install commands as well, but it's not as easy (or elegant) to parse that than to write an extension to the install program or to GNU automake.

  10. #10
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    314
    Im confused

    if you do this
    ./configure
    make
    make install

    are you using gnu automake
    The computer made me do it!! Slackware and SUSE too Gig\'em WHOOOOP!!
    \"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain amount of tasks, At the rate I\'m going I will never die.\" (I don\'t know)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •