Thanks to the advice from the guys here, I have been able to build some apps from sources. But I haven't deleted the directories and files from the make because I didn't know whether I needed them for the make uninstall some day.

How are you guys managing all this? The way I have it now it looks like there are usually two copies of most of the stuff that got built; one where it was built and the one that gets put into the "right directory" on the system.

Also, what does make clean do? Does it delete all the stuff I just asked about? And if so, can you do a make uninstall afterwards?

I searched the postings and I see that many people are recommending checkinstall. I grabbed it from /extra and I'll try to use it from now on. That will ensure that I can delete the directory I built stuff in, right?

Thanks,
Rand

P.S. I didn't see a man page for checkinstall, and the --help doesn't explain much. Is that all we need?

IIRC, 'make clean' usually removes all temporary output (compiled but unlinked .o files).

Thanks. If so, it won't be what I'm looking for.

Hi,

First, the 'make clean' removes the object files you create during a compilation of the source.

Second, checkinstall is used in place of the install phase to create a means to remove the installed application. As described by the author, checkinstall will run 'make install' but creates a package that will allow you to remove or install. Even allows you to install too multiple systems. Please reference;

http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/

The author gives a good explanation!

As for the make uninstall question, that depends on the author of the source. And if the Makefile or scripts to do such. That is why a lot of people use the checkinstall utility.

HTH!

Thank you, Gary. This will be a lot better than keeping so many unneeded files around just to be able to do a make uninstall some day.

I'm curious though, what did people do before these tools were written? Were people keeping the archive or the directories?

I write SlackBuild scripts for all the software I install, takes a bit more time writing a script for the first time, but gives greater control than something like checkinstall.

Also upgrading to a newer version of a pice of software normally just involves updating the version number and maybe a few tweaks in the SlackBuild script. This is easier than trying to remember all options that you gave to ./configure the first time round.

You must also remember that most Makefiles don't have an uninstall or equivalent option so in most cases keeping the source round is a waste of space

Thanks, Phil. I made checkinstalls of what I had already built, some worked out better than others. Then I deleted everything in my temporary directories where I had built it. At least now I have a record of what I installed from sources when I look at pkgtool.

Checkinstall works pretty well for me. Then there is of course explodepkg/makepkg that can be used to fix bad checkinstall packages. Or you could just create the package manually with makepkg.

Hi,

I like to keep a written system log for my machines. Be for software, hardware or troubleshooting problems for a system. The system log will keep you out of a lot of trouble. Yes, at times the log can be cumbersome but the rewards out weigh the effort put into the log.

Yes, you could write yourself some scripts to assist but for simple installs the checkinstall utility is worth the effort.

Happy Slacking!

HTH!

Thanks again. I do like the fact that Slackware doesn't have "package management" but it does help to have a tool to find programs when you want to remove them.

Doesn't have package management? What do you call installpkg/removepkg/upgradepkg/makepkg and pkgtool then? Also slacks .tgz packages contain package-metadata and installation scripts. The fact that slackware packages don't have dependencies in no way means that there is no package management.

I don't consider the tools you mentioned "package management" in the sense that the term is more broadly used. But you're right, what I meant was really that I am glad that Slackware doesn't attempt to handle package dependencies. What I found playing around with some other distros is that maybe libraries and packages which weren't really essential were considered dependencies and things can add up before you know it you have a big pile.

Hmm? This goes a bit off topic, but what does qualify for "package management" for you? I find it a bit hard to understand how dealing with software packages is not package management

Hi,

I think the OP is referencing to other forms of package management like RH, Debian and Suse to name a few. Slack doesnt't hold your hand like some of these distro. I like to now what is going on with my system rather than have someone do the work for me. This type of work sometimes can get you in big trouble.

Yes, things can seem easier with someone writing a script or software to auto configure. Be for packages or hardware.

Just makes sense to me too be able to setup what I want and how I desire.

Yes, to agree that;

is package management but as stated above the style is the issue here.