Re: build from source

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]


On 2024-02-01 22:00, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> It's not a great idea to make the unstable dev build your primary
> shell.  If you just want to have it around for testing, you can run
> it directly out of the build directory when needed.  (This is what
> I do.)

I have the same thing in mind -- I'll run the 'dev' just to see if I can 
make myself useful possibly sniffing out a bug, but I want the stable 
release to fall back to in case of trouble.  I'm unclear as to the 
situation with all the rest of whatever files might be associated with 
the 'dev' tho.  It's easy to just run the executable, but I'd worry 
about some other change somewhere else in the project that might be a 
dependency -- or is that not going to be an issue?  And then there's, 
say, Bart's, recent edit to 'zmv' -- will such things be included in a 
'git' of the latest? 'make install' does the Linux thing and distributes 
files here and there, which is standard, but ... well I dunno, maybe 
there's nothing to worry about, but one might suppose that two complete 
installations would be required -- one stable and one bleeding edge.  Or 
not.  Maybe just the executable is the only thing that varies 
'dangerously'.  None of this is obvious.




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1981 bytes --]