0

I've been trying to follow the instructions for installing giggle-0.7. From the INSTALL file:

The simplest way to compile this package is:

  1. cd' to the directory containing the package's source code and type ./configure' to configure the package for your system.

    Running `configure' might take a while. While running, it prints some messages telling which features it is checking for.

  2. Type `make' to compile the package.

Unfortunately running make makes it rather obvious that there is no make file in the root package directory. There are Makefile.am and Makefile.in, but running make Makefile.am and make Makefile.in doesn't do anything either.

The source is the tar file from this gnome.org page.

Any help is appreciated.

Edit 1 OS

I'm installing on CentOS 6.5.

Edit 2 config.log

The first sign of an error on config.log:

configure:4058: checking for gcc option to accept ISO C99 configure:4207: gcc -c -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 conftest.c:61: error: expected ';', ',' or ')' before 'text' conftest.c: In function 'main': conftest.c:115: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'newvar' conftest.c:115: error: 'newvar' undeclared (first use in this function) conftest.c:115: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once conftest.c:115: error: for each function it appears in.) conftest.c:125: error: 'for' loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode conftest.c:125: note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code configure:4207: $? = 1 configure: failed program was: | /* confdefs.h */ | #define PACKAGE_NAME "Giggle" | #define PACKAGE_TARNAME "giggle" | #define PACKAGE_VERSION "0.7" | #define PACKAGE_STRING "Giggle 0.7"

I'm currently trying to see if I can figure anything out about this. Please let me know if I should post more (or all) of config.log.

Improve this question
9
  • Just to make sure: Is there a reason why you're compiling this by hand? Is there a package available for it, either in the official repositories, EPEL, or any other source? Are you aware of the dangers of sudo make install, which an unfortunate number of software developers instruct you to do when compiling their software? Commented May 9, 2014 at 17:21
  • @jayhendren I could use some help with "the dangers of sudo make install". Commented May 9, 2014 at 17:43
  • Basically, make can do whatever it wants - it can run arbitrary scripts, it can add, remove, and edit files, and it can do anything a user would be able to do. By running make with sudo, you're elevating the make script to root privileges and allowing to change the system in any way possible. Unless you're 110% confident that the Makefile won't screw with your system, it's not a good idea to run it with root privileges. Long story short: don't run anything with sudo, especially if it's just downloaded from a random developer, without knowing exactly what it does. Commented May 9, 2014 at 18:02
  • When compiling software, it's generally better to specify a prefix with ./configure --prefix=/path/to/somewhere to specify an installation directory where you have permission to write. This way you control what the Makefile installs and you don't have to run sudo make install. You will also need to update your search path (PATH) and the locations that your linker searches for shared library objects in this case. Commented May 9, 2014 at 18:04
  • @jayhendren To me, this sounds almost exactly the same as running executables (.exe) in Windows. Commented May 9, 2014 at 18:05

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

The job of configure scripts is to create a Makefile. If there is no Makefile after running configure, then the configure script either:

  • Didn't "run without a hitch" as you claim
  • Is very poorly written

There should be a log file from the configuration script called something like config.log. See if you can find an error in there that would indicate why configuration didn't finish successfully.

Improve this answer
2
  • Looking at config.log now. Thank you for the tip. Commented May 9, 2014 at 17:21
  • There were hitches. Edit 2 has removed the claim that there wasn't. Commented May 9, 2014 at 19:53
0

Rather than try to debug a failed compiling, I've decided to use a different product.

I was looking for a git GUI that was native to Linux. My first choice was Giggle, and my second was gitg. Unfortunately neither of these actually had yum repositories for CentOS.

I did a yum search 'git' and found QGit. The yum installation was much easier and worked. I plan on using yum search as my primary source more often in the future.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.