Re: gcc install/upgrade question

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 11:00 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:00 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 19:03 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:

The standard way in this case is to follow the supplier's advice:FSF in this case. It should install to /usr/local, well out of your way and defined by standards to be used this way.

If you do this, you are replacing the "system compiler" with a local one
(/usr/local is special to gcc!). You will rarely want to do this under
linux.

It's true that installing binaries to /usr/local/bin makes it the default compiler, but you do get to choose with your PATH settings.

Much less error prone is to install to a prefix != /usr and prefix != /usr/local.

The LSB recommended way would be to install to /opt or a subdirectory
thereof (e.g. --prefix=/opt/gcc42).

BTW: FHS would have been correct (my fault).

/opt commonly seems to be populated with rpms.
 I'd keep out of it:

/opt is reserved for vendors. That's exactly what you act as when
installing additional packages in parallel to the one the OS vendor
installs.

Bruce, the OP, was talking about doing this for his own use on his own system. He's functioning as an administrator and not as a vendor.

Nit-picking. The difference is moot. It doesn't matter who builds a
piece of SW, whether he exercises "configure && make && make install" or
installs a pre-built tar-ball or rpm. The result to his system is the
same: A package is being installed.

The difference is who manages it, and the scope of the problem, if any.

I prefer --prefix=/usr/local/gcc42 over /opt anything.

Read the FHS. /usr/local/<package> violates the FHS.

We're talking about Bruce on his own computer. He owns /usr/local and can do what he wants with it. Vendors don't get a vote.

Yes, everybody has the right to shoot himself into his own foot.

Think of installing GCC on a "commercial *nix" (e.g. Solaris, AIX etc.).
GCC is designed in a way such it installs to /usr/local/[bin|lib|...]
that is doesn't collide with the OS-vendor's installation in
/usr/[bin|lib|...].

He's not, and Linux does not follow commercial unix practice, and the FHS differs significantly from standard unix practice.

FHS is a guideline trying provide a "standard unix practice". The fact
that almost any admin implements his own "private conventions" is a
different problem.

FHS is at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html


FHS is, apparently, edited by three people:
Edited by
Rusty Russell
Daniel Quinlan
Christopher Yeoh
Copyright © 1994-2004 Daniel Quinlan
Copyright © 2001-2004 Paul 'Rusty' Russell
Copyright © 2003-2004 Christopher Yeoh

The vendor (Fedora in this case) is forbidden the use of /usr/local

Right.

(and /var/local) beyond the basic layout whereas vendors often use /opt.

Right, because vendors want to install in parallel to the OS, and not to
override the OS (such as GCC).

gcc is never part of the OS.

..., but this discussion is as old as the FHS exists. We won't solve it,
either. All I can say: Don't install gcc to /usr/local/(bin|lib|...)
unless you want to override the OS's setting. The devil is in the
details.

For Bruce on his own machine, those are the standard places. Where else? Certainly not /opt.

I disagree. /opt/ is a perfect location for parallel
installation. /usr/local is an appropriate location to override the
system without distroying the OS-vendor's installation.

Here is a quote from the FHS:
/usr/local : Local hierarchy
Purpose

Here is another quote:
/opt : Add-on application software packages
Purpose

Requirements
Directory
Description
<package>  Static package objects
  <provider>  LANANA registered provider name

--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

Please do not reply off-list