Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Question: What are the advantages/disadvantages to compiling from source/binary?
Background: Question arose while messing around with Gentoo after using Slackware on and off for a few months. After spending a good 12hrs compiling X and Gnome, I'm wondering if the optimization is worth it compared to a 10min (or less) tgz package install?
NOTE:
I did a search, and--feel free to call me lazy--after 5 pages of similar posts that never fully addressed this issue, I felt that it might be worth it to make a more solid post (perhaps a sticky?). If there is already a well-known post addressing this exact issue, my apologies.
source will give you a final version that is optimized for your system. The binaries will be compiled for some other hardware specification and therefore will run best with that configuration but will work fairly well with your system. It will take more time and probably be more difficult but will give a better result. Also sometimes you may have no choice. If you have a system like LFS you must have everything compiled from source. Sometimes the binaries are not availble which would be another reason to go with source
Distribution: Ubuntu, Debian, Various using VMWare
Posts: 2,088
Rep:
From my experience, the benefits of compiling from source are not that huge - it can be quicker just to install a binary package, and start using the program straight away, rather than wait 10 hours for Openoffice to compile, just to save 1 second on the startup time.
My attitude is that there is so much to learn about the efficient administration of a Linux system that we really don't have time to compile everything. Little situations arise regularly that require the compilation of source for a specific needed program, so one needs to be able to do it, but everything is total overkill.
The exception is for a person who wants to do advanced programming or high level system maintenance. Such a person really needs to know the details of why his OS works the way it does.
rickh: I don't quite see how compiling from source lets an administrator understand his system more carefully: the scripting goes by so fast that I assume most Gentoo/BSD users just watch movies/do something else while it's compiling. It seems like using the "emerge --pretend" or "installpkg --ask" would be more useful to an administrator--at least from what I understand.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.