From sudiptob at biostat.umn.edu  Thu Apr 27 18:48:16 2006
From: sudiptob at biostat.umn.edu (sudiptob at biostat.umn.edu)
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:48:16 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Rd] Installation oddity on Fedora Core 5 (PR#8814)
Message-ID: <20060427164816.5F9674772C@slim.kubism.ku.dk>


Hi Marc:

Thanks so much for the input. You are right that I do not do the make
check-all (bad habit!) and usually just go:

./configure --prefix=
make
make install

route. Yes, I realized I had forgotten to mention make install in my
original mail, but I did try with that. I am simply reinstalling FC5
*disabling* the SElinux and see what happens. I will keep you posted.

Best,

S.

*****************************************************************
Sudipto Banerjee, PhD,
Div. of Biostatistics,
University of Minnesota,
A460 Mayo Building, MMC 303,
420 Delaware Street, SE,
Minneapolis, MN 55455.



On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:

> Hi Sudipto,
>
> OK. Just for clarification:
>
> 'make' will simply do the compilation 'in place' in the source directory
> tree. No installation is performed here.
>
> 'make install' will actually do the installation into the target folder.
>
> You can do 'make install' without 'make' first, but I suspect a lot of
> folks, myself included, will run 'make' first and then run 'make
> check-all' before installing, to be sure that the compilation is intact
> and passes all checks.
>
> In fact, I keep the output of 'make check-all' as part of my
> installation validation documentation.
>
> That being said, were there any error messages output during 'make
> install' that might suggest a problem such as access permission issues
> to the target directory or the like?
>
> You might also want to run (I think this is correct):
>
>  dmesg
>
> in a console to look for any 'avc' error messages in the error log. This
> would be related to FC5's use of SELinux and there have been very
> significant SELinux related policy changes in FC5 that could feasibly be
> involved here also.
>
> HTH,
>
> Marc
>
>
> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 11:25 -0500, Sudipto Banerjee wrote:
> > Hi Marc:
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I did do
> >
> > make install
> >
> > and also tried it with simply make (which is, I presume, enough to
> > produce the executable scripts for R).
> >
> > Please keep me posted.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > S.
>
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 18:10 +0200, sudiptob at biostat.umn.edu wrote:
> > > > Hello guys:
> > > >
> > > > I recently installed FC 5 linux and installed R from source. It installed
> > > > fine, but there was an oddity that I want to report. Although I used
> > > >
> > > > ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/R-2.3.0
> > > >
> > > > make
> > > >
> > > > it did not seem to recognize the prefix and went ahead and installed it in
> > > > the source directory -- I usually ``tar xzf'' it to my home directory
> > > > and run the installation scripts from there (as root) to install to
> > > > /usr/local/R-2.3.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This procedure worked fine on earlier versions of Fedora as well as on
> > > > debian and other distros. Wonder if this is a gcc-4.1 or GNU make issue.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback will be much appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Tx.
> > > >
> > > > Sudipto.
> > >
> > > This question may be akin to "Is the computer plugged in?", but did you
> > > also run:
> > >
> > >   make install
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > Marc Schwartz
> > >
>
>



[Rd] Installation oddity on Fedora Core 5 (PR#8814)
sudiptob at biostat.umn.edu