Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


is what I'm trying to install. Anyways, I ran ./configure and make but then I ran make without "make check install". So I'm thinking of running make with "make check install". Is the possibility of this ruined now?

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Run make help and you will see, what does each target effectively do. Or read the Makefile.

In general, you should run make clean before recompilation to ensure you build the program the way you have configured it. Depending on the Makefile, targets may not be re-compiled if the products of compilation/linking is already found. A sane Makefile should include checks which determine if recompilation is needed. But if you want to be on the safe side, just run make clean.

share|improve this answer

You don't need to rebuild an executable in order to check it and install it, so just make check install should be fine.
However, in case you need to rebuild the executables, such as to add functionality, just remaking make won't work. Because make sees the old executable and assumes noting needs to be done. so you should run make clean before, or make distclean in some cases.

share|improve this answer
It's related to the Makefile, usually, the excutable depends on other files (at least, the source file). make rebuilds it if any of its dependencies change. – tuxce Jul 29 '11 at 8:58
I was talking about changing ./configure options. – Philomath Jul 29 '11 at 9:05

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.