[Samba] Source builds should be in /usr/local or /opt (was: Re: Sernet 4.3.X package is no longer free :/)

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Wed Sep 23 19:16:25 UTC 2015

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 10:09 -0400, Sonic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Rowland Penny
> <rowlandpenny241155 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Never just perform ./configure && make && make install.
> > > Never.
> > Why not ? it will put all the files in the place that the wiki
> > expects them
> > to be.
> As for where a plain ./configure puts the file I prefer the
> /usr/local/... installs for self-compiled products. I think it's a
> lot
> cleaner then using the directories that under the surveillance of the
> system's package manger. Makes for a much cleaner environment IMO.

This point does need to be be made clear.  It is vital for the later
sanity of the systems administrator not to simply overwrite package
-managed files with those built by Samba.  Not only can then be easily
overwritten by another well-meaning package or update, a source upgrade
needs a little more care than just 'make install':

By putting the libs under /usr/local/samba or /opt, you can remove the
old binaries before installing new ones.  This is both important and
required, and isn't practical when co-mingled in system paths. 

This does matter, as for example, if we were to rename/withdraw a ldb
module, you would still have the old module, not overwritten by make
install, and (at best) Samba would fail to start.

While less critical, leaving libraries by old names around in system
paths after an upgrade is just asking for trouble. 


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

More information about the samba mailing list