On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 peterhi / my-deja.com wrote:
> I have the 1.6.2 tarball and I've unpacked it to /root/x. I've then run
> configure, make, make test and make install.
>
> All is well (other than it installs to /usr/local/bin and not /usr/bin)

The point of doing that is so you can differentiate easily what you
installed "by hand" and what the package manager has installed.

if you really want to put it in /usr/bin, try:

./configure --prefix=/usr

I use the prefix option when I want to install ruby in my home directory
or when i am on a machine that uses /opt instead of /usr/local.

That option is part of the configure script generator so also lots of
other programs support it.

> except that the make does not make tcltklib even though the output of
> make indicates this: 'compiling tcltklib' which skips straight to
> 'compiling tk'.

Ruby makefiles list the package you could compile even if they are turned
off. If you want to know the details why some extensions are not
available, go in that directory and type ../../ruby extconf.rb

For example, on one of my installations, if I go in ext/readline and type
that command, I get:

checking for tgetnum() in -lncurses... yes
checking for readline/readline.h... yes
checking for readline/history.h... yes
checking for readline() in -lreadline... no

So you can see here that it finds the interface files (*.h) of ReadLine,
but not the library itself (libreadline.so)

Which is not an answer in itself but it certainly a step forward.

> and the japanese README is somewhat uninteligable.

Beware, the japanese could hear you! =)

> I've run the extconf.rb file but no makefile was created. But I do note
> that tcl.h and tk.h exist within the /usr/include directory but only
> tcl.h is reported as being found.

Could you send us the result of extconf.rb (as above) ?

matju