[ILUG] gmake ???
blf at blf.utvinternet.co.uk
Sat Oct 30 21:21:40 IST 2004
| From: "Danny Browne" <danny_browne at eircom.net>
| Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:28:07 +0100
| apparently i need gmake to build gkrellm (a sys monitor),
| so i find the package, downlaod it, build it, install it.
| All went well. however, it seems to have installed
! [ ... ] make rather than gmake to /usr/local/bin.
| when i type gmake at the command prompt i get
| gmake: Command not found!!!
without the exclaims (!). in the future, _please_
only give _exact_ messages .... unmarked editorial
enhancements/omissions can be very confusing.
| did i downlaod the wrong package [ ... ]??
| i dont understand this...
*sigh* GNU strikes again.
you did everything correctly.
`gmake' is a synonym for GNU make(1).
this synonym nominally exists on non-Linux systems
(when GNU make is installed), but sometimes does not
on Linux (where GNU make is the norm; e.g., it does
exist on my SUSE 9.1 at home, but, AFAICR, not on
the very ancient Debian used at work).
since you apparently now have GNU `make' installed,
just use `make'. if that bothers you, make a link
called `gmake' to `make'. if you do not know how
to make a link, then do not --- just use `make'.
or in short: it is a very common, if confusing,
convention to say "gmake" when GNUs version of
make is required. (no makes are created equal;
every version differs.) generally, if something
needs GNU make, and you try some other make, it
(in my experience) obviously fails. _why_ if
fails may not be obvious, but the fact that it
did fail is obvious. (yer kiloage may vary!)
p.s. you probably want /usr/local/bin (or whereever
it is that (g)make is installed) in yer PATH.
«How many surrealists does it take to | Brian Foster Montpellier,
change a lightbulb? Three. One calms | blf at utvinternet.ie FRANCE
the warthog, and two fill the bathtub | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
with brightly-colored machine tools.» | http://www.stopesso.com
More information about the ILUG