LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Ubuntu (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/)
-   -   Ubuntu doesn't come with "make"??? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-doesnt-come-with-make-471603/)

gjoogjoob 08-07-2006 10:04 AM

Ubuntu doesn't come with "make"???
 
Okay, so I installed ubuntu on my laptop which was quick and very painless compared to some other Linux installs I've done (Gentoo, slackware). I could even connect to the internet without any configuration. Well, I could directly plug into my router and surf the web. Considering my router is on another floor in my house, it can get kind of annoying.

So I set out to get my wireless working and I download all the necessary drivers and go to make the "makefile" and I get the error:

Make -- command not found.

I thought this was pretty wacky. Was the terminal pulling my leg? I looked in /usr/bin and to my suprise, make wasn't there!

To make things worse, when I tried to apt-get install build-essential, I got the error that there's no such package!

At first, I thought it was just a bad install (depsite getting no errors or objections whatsoever) so I reinstalled and still nothing! Can somebody please help me out and point me in the right direction?

runnerfrog 08-07-2006 10:22 AM

On ubuntu try "#apt-get install gcc" and "#apt-get install make".

binary_y2k2 08-07-2006 10:25 AM

build-essential is in the main repo, you should be able to apt-get it, don't know why you can't.
Ubuntu doesn't come with build-essential as default because the "average" user won't need it, but it installed fine on my system

aysiu 08-07-2006 10:30 AM

No, Ubuntu doesn't come with it installed. Dumb, I know. Apparently, the developers think it's a security concern (even though every other distro comes with it) and that most new users don't need it (which is untrue, and those who don't need it won't even notice it's there anyway).

It does, however, come on both the Desktop CD and Alternate CD:
Code:

sudo apt-cdrom add
sudo aptitude update
sudo aptitude install build-essential


gjoogjoob 08-07-2006 10:39 AM

Thaks a lot for the reponses guys. I'm reinstalling Ubuntu just to get a clean slate and then I'll try out your suggestions.

Yeah, it is kinda dumb how Ubuntu doesn't come with make. They should at least give you the option of choosing what kind of user you are (Home, Office, Power User etc) but I guess the streamlining goes with the whole erm, streamlining thing.

EDIT: Another quick, newbie question: For my wireless, I need to install some firmware. But all I get in the .gz file are the actual firmware files and no instructions whatsoeever. So...where do I put them?

randell6564 08-07-2006 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjoogjoob
Thaks a lot for the reponses guys. I'm reinstalling Ubuntu just to get a clean slate and then I'll try out your suggestions.

Yeah, it is kinda dumb how Ubuntu doesn't come with make. They should at least give you the option of choosing what kind of user you are (Home, Office, Power User etc) but I guess the streamlining goes with the whole erm, streamlining thing.

EDIT: Another quick, newbie question: For my wireless, I need to install some firmware. But all I get in the .gz file are the actual firmware files and no instructions whatsoeever. So...where do I put them?

What kind of wireless are you running? I use a Linksys wusb11 wireless-B antenna and ubuntu didnt need anything to get it going.

fragos 08-07-2006 06:38 PM

IMHO To say Ubuntu doesn't come with "make" is not true. Ubuntu comes with a world of thousands of software packages in Ubuntu repositories on the web. The CD you installed has a very functioning system on it. It also provides access to the web repositories which are all part of Ubuntu. You aren't being deprived of features. There can can be reasons to go beyond that extensive set of applications which require the bits and pieces of "build-essentials" but frequently you will find what you need in the repositories with Synaptic.

As to compiling most decent packages put things where they belong on your system and will identify if you're missing anything that you'll need to install before proceeding. There should be a README file in the tar that will tell you if there are any special instructions or parameters that that should be added to "./configure". You may also find an INSTALL file with directions.

merize147 08-09-2006 09:23 PM

In order to get "make" to install via apt-get you have to uncomment the extra repositories and run an update.

See the repositories section of the ubuntuguide

vi /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get install make

and don't forget "apt-get dist-upgrade" to keep the system up to date.

binary_y2k2 08-10-2006 07:19 AM

make is in the main repository, so you shouldn't have to uncomment any lines in your sources.list

nuxrl 08-10-2006 12:41 PM

Ubuntu desktop is designed & released for desktop users. For normal desktop users, build-essentials package is not a must. Different distro has different view on how the system should be put together. Redhat/FC and Suse like to put everything in the box when installed, while some others such as ubuntu, slackware and gentoo, like to install minimium packages by default and give the user the choice to decide what to install later. In terms of make and gcc/g++, they are installed in slackware and gentoo by default. It makes sense 'cause users would need them to build new packages. In a Debian based system, it's different. Debian and Ubuntu package repositories have some many pre-compiled packaged ready. "apt-get install" would do it for you.

fragos 08-10-2006 03:19 PM

I for one don't see the big deal about having to install build-essentials. It was one of the first things I installed but you only need do it once. If you can go through the some times painful process of compiling, a simple Synaptic install is nothing. Xmltv for online TV directories is a good example. It took hours to locate and compile the various pieces under SuSE. Ubuntu provided a package that installed in moments. I'd call that impressive.

IsaacKuo 08-10-2006 03:44 PM

The big deal is that out-of-box, an Ubuntu install is incapable of using 99% of the standard *nix documentation out there on the Internet. Like it or not, the standard base *nix method of installing software is with make/make install.

Maybe you don't care because you only use pre-packaged Ubuntu binaries, but SOMEONE has to put together those pre-packaged Ubuntu binaries for you, right? And that binary package is ultimately built from a source code package which assumes the standard *nix way of doing things.

Yes, if you know what you're doing you can turn an Ubuntu install into something that conforms to *nix standards. But it shouldn't be necessary to do so in the first place. As it is, Ubuntu documentation must assume that things are done "the Ubuntu way". This means that not only is 99% of the *nix documentation out there incompatable with Ubuntu out-of-box, but that Ubuntu documentation is also incompatable with other *nix systems.

Now, maybe if you don't care about the open source community and only care about what happens within the Ubuntu world, then none of this matters. But Ubuntu depends far more on the rest of the open source community than they depend on Ubuntu. This is a schism which need not exist at all, but for the strange unjustified decisions of Ubuntu's developers.

nuxrl 08-10-2006 08:26 PM

Issac,

Like I said before, Ubuntu is targeted as a REAL Linux desktop OS. This means that it can be used by normal home users who are used to Windows systems. One key to the success in Desktop OS market is ease of use. This probably is the reason why Windows is still dominant in this field today although we all know it sucks being an Operating System. For normal users, they probably have never heard of Makefile and they do NOT like CLI. So, to teach them to use "./configure; make; make install" would scare them away. Linux is great, other *nix systems are also good. But, if we want to be successful in Desktop market (hopefully, we will), something needs to be changed. Leave the build and packaging to engineers and give the ease of use to the users. Of course, make "build-essentials" package available for people who are willing to do things themselves.

My 2 cents.

IsaacKuo 08-10-2006 10:33 PM

That's absolutely no reason to NOT include the standard *nix tools. The only benefit for not including the standard tools is saving a tiny amount of disc space. The downsides, in contrast, are numerous--including making it so that the average user isn't able to use nVidia's official video driver installer.

The average user is not inconvenienced in the slightest by the existence of the standard *nix tools in his system. If, for whatever reason, he wants to do something which happens to assume the existence of those tools (like use nVidia's standard installer), then it can only benefit him for the standard tools to already be installed.

fragos 08-10-2006 10:51 PM

I have great doubt that anyone would ever need or want all the open source applications available. *nix isn't a religion its a set of tools. A distribution is like a tool box with the kit that gets the user's job done. Plumbers don't carry a block plane and do quite nicely with their tool box. In the final analysis success comes from doing things the "user's" way. Linux is unique in that it can be packaged for almost any user. If you don't like the tool box Ubuntu provides there are many others, hundreds I believe. I for one have no immediate plans to change religions or my Linux distribution. Ubuntu is very much what this user and many others want.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 AM.