Thanks, Steven and others who replied to this thread.
I suspect I have to go with this indeed:
> Your best bet would probably be to just rely on your package manager.
Hmm.
Interesting, nevertheless:
> This initially sounds like a good idea. In fact, I once went as far as
> actually writing such
I'm having a bit of trouble following your question, so let me first try to
restate it, so we can see if I 'm getting it right.
Right now, the "ldd" program is able to examine a single executable and
determine which shared libraries it depends on.
I believe you are suggesting that it would be
Indeed I do/did not really understand the effects of "make clean" and
"make distclean", Richard (this _is_ a newbie list, isn't it?).
Your explanation helps a bit, thanks.
Thus "make distclean" would do the job like "uninstall", if I
understand that right.
And it depends on the individual program
ptember 19, 2002 9:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Paul Kraus; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: File Management
pa3gcu wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 September 2002 19:20, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>>Obviously software is always better installed from source. This
>>creates binaries that
pa3gcu wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 September 2002 19:20, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>>Obviously software is always better installed from source. This creates
>>binaries that are system specific. However this represents the problem
>>of software removal. I notice some software by default will install int
On Thursday 01 January 1970 00:00, Heimo Claasen wrote:
> This latgest on "uninstall" in this thread is bordering the question I
> had earlier on "weeding out" unneeded things.
>
> Uninstalling a program compiled on a machine seems to work like that
> indeed.
>
> BTW, I got another command (syntax
This latgest on "uninstall" in this thread is bordering the question I
had earlier on "weeding out" unneeded things.
Uninstalling a program compiled on a machine seems to work like that
indeed.
BTW, I got another command (syntax) told:
> make clean
> make distclean
(this from in the dir fro
On Wednesday 18 September 2002 21:30, pa3gcu wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 September 2002 19:20, Paul Kraus wrote:
> > Obviously software is always better installed from source. This creates
> > binaries that are system specific. However this represents the problem
> > of software removal.
There is a
On Wednesday 18 September 2002 19:20, Paul Kraus wrote:
> Obviously software is always better installed from source. This creates
> binaries that are system specific. However this represents the problem
> of software removal. I notice some software by default will install into
> /usr/local then du
Obviously software is always better installed from source. This creates
binaries that are system specific. However this represents the problem
of software removal. I notice some software by default will install into
/usr/local then dump everything under one directory (windows style-the
source inst
10 matches
Mail list logo
