c compiler

I've got my Red Hat Linux 7.3 installed now! YEAH! I just tried to install Perl, but learned I don't have a C compiler. I went to gcc.gnu.org to try and install their compiler, but all I saw were source files, and no binaries for Linux. I can't install it from the source since I don't have a compiler, right? How stupid is that!? Can someone tell me how to get this installed?

My suggestion is to install gcc from the Redhat 7.3 install disks. This would be easiest, and less likely to break your system.

Why are you reinstalling perl? Redhat 7.3 already has the newest stable version (5.6.1) with it. . .I don't think you can even do a redhat install without perl. . .

1. If you installed RH from a CD, then all the RPMs you need should be on that CD, including GCC, Perl etc. Your install instructions should tell you how to install RPMs from the CD. (I'd tell you, but I haven't used RH in a LONG time...)

2. You can also try an RPM repository:
http://rpmfind.net/

There are two kinds of RPMs. A regular "RPM" which contains binaries (so that you don't have to compile anything) and "RPMS", which are Source RPMs that require you to compile first.

I think you were trying to install an RPMS, instead of a regular RPM.

Thanks parker, I'll see what I can do now...

When I found and tried to run the rpm it reported failed dependencies. All of which seemed to relate to gcc, the c compiler, itself, or to other c compiler realted packages. I mounted my cdrom so I could check the CD, but I couldn't find anything there. I didn't have any luck with GNOME RPM either.

The question remains: How can I install a c compiler?

add all the packages that RPM reports to you as missing to your rpm command.

BTW, it's usually far more helpful if you post the command you used, and the exact output/error message you received, it's very hard to diagnose blindly. Can you do that?

One thing I often do is create a temporary directory, say /root/rpms. I then copy all the RPMS I want to install from the cd here. Then run, in the temp directory:

which will install every RPM in the /root/rpms directory. If it fails saying it needs an additional RPM, then copy that one in and try until you satisfy all dependencies.

And the RPMS are on the cds, trust me. They are under /mnt/cdrom/Redhat/RPMS/

And source RPMS are referred to as "SRPMS" by Redhat, not "RPMS".

I don't want to start a distribution war, but... this is exactly the reason why I switched from RedHat to Debian. I wanted to upgrade a compiler, which required a newer glibc, which required a new version of RPM, etc., etc.

Basically, the only way I could get what I wanted was to upgrade from RH 6.2 to RH 7.0, and 7.0 had *all* sorts of security problems.

One of my friends laughed and demonstrated to me how it would be done on Debian. Debian's APT (advanced package tool) is a wonderful thing and does exactly what you expect it to do. You say you want something, and it'll automatically find and suggest other packages that need to be upgraded as well.

RPM, on the other hand, complains that it needs a certain set of files to install. At least, this was the case when I was using it. And the user is expected to find out what RPM that file belongs to, download the RPM, try to install it, have it fail, etc., etc. Further, it's a pain to roll-back changes.

Anyway, just wanted to open your eyes to how other distributions deal with packages and dependencies. RPM is playing catch-up in this area.

Best,
parker

There certainly are better packaging systems, no argument here.

I don't have a huge problem with RPMs, personally. All the important services on my redhat servers I install from source anyway, like apache, mod_perl, php, mysql and openssh.

I've been meaning to give slackware or debian a more concerted try in the near future, but my servers are running so well on redhat that I'm loath to change anything, and I'd be a fool to fix something that isn't broken.