On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 07:32 -0400, Gregory Pittman wrote: > On 05/31/2011 05:44 AM, Owen wrote: > > On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:29:30 -0400 > > Gregory Pittman<gregp_ky at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Ok, so run make install as root, then that kind of changes all the > > permissions in the build directory. Maybe no big deal, but my > > preference is to have user files owned by the user. > > > Ah, yes, forgot about that since I'm always putting svn versions into my > /home directory... > > Greg
It is indeed wise to run make as regular user because of system security reasons. But there is another one (I might be wrong on this - in which case feel free to correct me, please). Make install will dive into folder next in list and do making followed immediately by install. OK. I think I can see the problem in this scenario: Say you already have some application installed from svn/bzr/git (any revision control mechanism) and that you pull/update to latest regularly. And imagine that application isn't "monolithic" (single binary), but consists of many dynamic libraries/modules called during run time from main app instead. Doing "make" alone will terminate on first appearance of error, but your older installation will not be compromised. But, doing "make install" will build while it's possible AND install while "make"-ing is possible, leaving you with part of installation updated and with other part, currently unbuildable one, obsolete. Wouldn't that (possibly) leave you unable to run your beloved application? Vlada
