Six days until release. Thinking of a slightly unorthodox install.

[GreyGeek]

I would go for it.

But, I would partition the HD on the machine I intended to run it on into at least two. Add the development environment to the second one, along with the source, etc... Then compile the packages, roll them into a "release" iso, and then use that iso to install your SRKubuntu into the first partition. When ever a package needed to be "updated" you could download the source for that package into your second partition, compile it into a deb package, and then install it on your first partition.

You would certainly KNOW Kubuntu inside and out. That's for sure! :cool:

[SteveRiley]

I assume you feel bored with the Daisy Dukes

Uh, what?

I've been reading a little about this. People have asked this question before, and often the answer is "why do that?" It's true that with modern hardware, custom compiles with hand-tuned optimizations don't offer much in the way of performance gains. I suppose I was more wondering out loud whether such a thing is feasible for mere mortals. However, one person produced a well-written guide.

[GreyGeek]

You know, I just decided to build Kubuntu from source on my old Sony laptop!

[SteveRiley]

Really? Sounds like a competition!

Or is your calendar off -- April Fool's was 20 days ago

[GreyGeek]

Well, I had no plans to do so until I saw that link you cited.

Building a distro using apt-build is SO MUCH EASIER than I recall from doing it 8 years ago. It started with downloading the Linux source tree and building a kernel and utilities. Then it was one program at a time.using the compiler msgs to determine dependency problems, usually missing or conflicting libraries.

From what I read the big problem in the apt-build approach is third party apps. The thing to do would be to install the minimum Kubuntu distro using the final release and make sure it has no 3rd party apps. I am assuming that "3rd party" apps would be any except KDE & Qt based apps. After the initial compile updates and installs could be done using

apt-build install program

One comment said that a full apt-build world could take over 24 hours!

It really sounds like FUN!

[SteveRiley]

Yeah, I hadn't expected to encounter something like apt-build, either. I'm Googling for more info now. Sounds really interesting.

[scrubjay]

However, one person produced a well-written guide.

You know, I just decided to build Kubuntu from source on my old Sony laptop!

I've built packages from source but never a OS, the enthusiasm here has almost convinced me to give it a try also. May have to break out Gparted and slice off a partition...

[SteveRiley]

Wow, did I, like, start a trend or something?

[scrubjay]

No lemmings jokes, please.

[GreyGeek]

Lead on, Dear Leader!!

[SteveRiley]

First test.

apt-build --build-only install nano

threw some errors: build-time dependencies were missing. apt-build is possibly not as robust as some think.

apt-get build-dep nano

downloaded and installed six -dev packages. Then apt-build ran successfully, and sure enough, I had a new .deb package waiting to be installed.

Questions:

• Did I perhaps mess up what would otherwise have worked because I indicated --build-only? Dunno.
• If, in fact, apt-build does require pre-existing -dev packges for everything that it will build, then...wow. That's starting to sound cumbersome. There is, alas, no remove-build-dep command.

[GreyGeek]

I haven't read the apt-build man pages yet, but doesn't adding "install" to the "--build-only" switch seem contradictory?

[MoonRise]

Kind of like make and make install. I would think Build would mean the pieces are put together without error and packaged ready for install. My guess that is.

[blobfish]

apt-get build-dep nano

downloaded and installed six -dev packages.

Now I think this downloads pre-compiled dependencies. So are you really building from source? Take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit holes goes? ldd /usr/bin/programname will show you the libraries an executable is linked to. Here is nano, check out dolphin

ldd /usr/bin/nano
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fffda382000)
        libncursesw.so.5 => /lib/libncursesw.so.5 (0x00007f929e14a000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007f929dda9000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x00007f929dba4000)
        libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/libtinfo.so.5 (0x00007f929d97d000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f929e398000)

There is, alas, no remove-build-dep command.

You don't want to do that anyway. The *-dev packages are usually very small. The libraries you are linking have all the meat and you need those to run the program.

[SteveRiley]

I haven't read the apt-build man pages yet, but doesn't adding "install" to the "--build-only" switch seem contradictory

I wanted to see the package get created but not actually installed. An equivalent, probably more sensible, command is

apt-build build-source nano

Now I think this downloads pre-compiled dependencies. So are you really building from source? Take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit holes goes? ldd /usr/bin/programname will show you the libraries an executable is linked to... You don't want to do that anyway. The *-dev packages are usually very small. The libraries you are linking have all the meat and you need those to run the program.

Much of the knowlege around compiling from source is still new to me. I know I have some catch-up learning to do, including what those -dev files actually do.