keeping source trees

Georg Wilckens durandal at
Tue Jun 6 16:44:44 PDT 2000

On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 06:42:14AM -0400, Greg T Hill wrote:
> If you have to patch a source tree, edit the makefile,  configure with special
> options, etc.. it may be a good idea to  tar and zip your source tree and save
> it.  Do a 'make clean' to remove the .o files if you want to save space, if you
> don't, you can just unpack and run 'make install' to reinstall a package.  On a
> couple of packages where I've had to set environment variables before compiling
> I've saved those lines in a script that runs 'configure' after setting the
> variables,  that way, if I have to recompile, which is likely on these
> packages, it's much easier.

OTOH I like it a lot better to keep the tarballs unchanged. I wouldn't
even gunzip them ever. That way the checksums remain valid and I
always have clean vanilla-packages. Patches from other sources apply
cleanly, I can share my archive and I can generate valid
bug-reports. If I do need to make changes which are worth saving, I
create a diff. I guess it's still a matter of personal preference.
> A side note on Unix trivia, I picked up a copy of Kernigan & Pike's "Unix
> Programming Environment"-1983,  and the chapter on filesystems describes /etc
> as holding "system miscellania",  so I guess the origin of /etc really is "et
> cetera".

Yeah... fits the abbreviation slightly better than "Ere's Them
Configs". ;)

Georg Wilckens <durandal at>

If you don't risk anything, you risk even more.
Mail archive:
IRC access: server: port: 6667 channel: #LFS
News Reader access:
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list