If we ignore the potential security issues with either approach for a moment and assume for the sake of argument that neither is more risky than the other I "mi

If we ignore the potential security issues with either approach for a moment and assume for the sake of argument that neither is more risky than the other I "might be surprised" by the behavior of running `./configure` or `make install` but I will almost always be surprised by the behavior downloading and running a random shell script. I prefer a package over either case, but lacking a package I'd prefer to use something that has some expectations of how it should behave. As a packager I find that software with a Makefile, CMakeLists.txt, or a configure script is likely to be easier to package than something that just provides a shell script. Those might still need to be patched or tweaked but there's an expectation that it's going to try to behave a certain way.