Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I've been following this tutorial, and I've found myself needing to compile makedev. However, when I try

ROOT=/mnt make install

in the source directory (makedev-20110824), I get:

gimptool-2.0 --install-script misc/xcf-png.scm
make: gimptool-2.0: Command not found
make: *** [misc/icon.png] Error 127

As I understand it, makedev is a utility that automatically populates the /dev directory, whereas gimptools are used for image manipulation.

Why do I need gimptools to build makedev? Is there a way I can build it without gimptools and still expect to make it through the tutorial without much trouble?


Also in case it is relevant, I'm running a reasonably minimal Debian install on VirtualBox.

share|improve this question
Have a look at the Makefile, maybe it explains what it's trying to do (and maybe there's a target that doesn't depend on misc/icon.png while still doing what you want). – sr_ Feb 25 '12 at 14:13
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Are you sure you got the right makedev ? I found the multiple versions of makedev:

  • The one available at sunsite.unc.edu which the tutorial mentions. There is makedev-1.6.1, which is written in C and makedev-2.2, which is a shell script.
  • makedev-20110824 (google lead me to this sourceforge project). It would appear that this is not maintained much.

As for the gimp-tool invocation, it looks like the author of the makedev-20110824 wanted an 'icon' whose original (in gimp XCF format) was converted to a png during the make. I don't understand why the author would put an icon for a system utility like makedev which is unlikely to be launched off a desktop environment.

Also, I'd like you to checkout Linux From Scratch, considering your interest in the tutorial. That tutorial is quite old (2000) and you might face many problems putting the pieces together (which might be a good thing if you enjoy it).

share|improve this answer

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.