[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Brad Tilley" <brad@...ystems.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: make install
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:52:24AM -0400, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> > For Johnny (as it is), implementing "make install" should be trivial.
>>
>> Yes, yes it is. I just could not stop my jaw from dropping when it said
>> "make install not tested". I kept thinking "then why on earth did you
>> bother to write a "make install". Personally I like to test the things
>> I write (and release).
>
> I agree that it looks weird from the side.
>
> I did not write Makefile. It is generated by qmake from project file
> (that does not contain any specific definitions) and I did not look
> into that to check what's going on there (it is postponed till next
> release). So I wrote "'make install' was not tested" to not confuse
> users with stuff that I did not write and/or test.
>
> It is on my todo list for next release. So I'll test it for Johnny 1.2
> (along with things for packaging).
I prefer to build JtR from source and have never had an issue doing that.
I use Debian (Stable, Testing and Sid) as well as OpenBSD -release. I have
to add GNU make on OpenBSD to build JtR but that's not an issue and I
prefer to build from source as many times, the pre-built packages are
older or do not have OpenMP, etc. I can link executables myself to
/usr/local/bin or whatever and that works just fine.
The lack of 'install' does not bother me. Just my 2 cents.
Brad
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Regards,
> Aleksey Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
