[Xastir] install question

[Rob Neece]

Thanks for the help, Curt.  Based on your advice, I'm trying to use cvs 
to install the release version, which should be 2.0.1.

Unfortunately my wheels are spinning.  Here is the situation.

The xastir directory is at ~/src/xastir, and .xastir is at ~/.xastir.

less .cvsrc provides:
cvs -z3
update -P -d
status -v
diff -u

Update attempt:
cd ~/src/xastir
cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at xastir.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/xastir co 
-r RELEASE xastir
cd xastir
cvs update
./bootstrap.sh
./configure
(make clean;make -j3 2>&1) | tee make.log
su
make install
exit
xastir

Things start to go wrong at ./configure, which goes like this:

[rtn at hawk xastir]$ ./configure
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk... gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes

Configuring xastir 1.9.9

checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking for gcc... no
checking for cc... no
checking for cl.exe... no
configure: error: no acceptable C compiler found in $PATH
See `config.log' for more details.

The first question is why didn't cvs pull down version 2.0.1?  The 
second question is why is gcc not being found, since I just installed it 
with synaptic?  I may have messed up earlier in the process, and these 
questions are irrelevant.

Thanks for your help,
Rob

Curt, WE7U wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Rob Neece wrote:
>
>> Version 1.9.9 was installed under the previous OS, so I still have 
>> the .xastir directory structure in my home directory associated with 
>> that. Question 1 is can I keep .xastir and just proceed to install?
>
> Yes.  Assuming that you're not going to change the install location
> of the Xastir executables from what you had before.  If you
> installed from a packaged binary before, the package maintainers
> might have decided to change the install directory on you.
>
>
>> Assuming that will work, should I install 1.9.9 or just go for the 
>> latest version on CVS?
>
> You'd be best served by downloading the 2.0.0 release from
> Sourceforge and compiling that, or building from the latest CVS
> which will give you 2.0.1.  We were in the middle of OpenStreetMaps
> integration during the 1.9.9 timeframe, so by snagging 2.0.0 or
> later you'll have all the bug-fixes and efficiencies that the latest
> code gives you for OpenStreetMaps.
>