Jussi Schultink wrote: > Hei, > > You could just download and install the csound 5 deb from the csound website. (http://csound.sourceforge.net/#Linux) > > > Jussi > > On 9/11/07, *Robert Persson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Ubuntu's version of csound is massively outdated. Version 5 came out > in 2005, but ubuntustudio still ships with version 4.23. This is a > problem because some important sound applications, such as Blue, > require version 5. > > Unfortunately updating it is not as simple as finding a more recent > rpm and using alien to convert it to a deb package. For instance a > version numbering quirk makes the packman version (packman is a 3rd > party repository for SuSE) look older than the ubuntu version---the > ubuntu version is numbered 1:4.23... whereas the packman version is > numbered 0:5.... Another problem is that the packman csound is divided > into several smaller packages, as opposed to Ubuntu's single big > package. Since the ubuntustudio-audio metapackage depends on csound, > messing about with any of this stuff is going to cause package > management headaches of one sort or another. I also know that the > fedora binaries have been compiled with several some important > features disabled, such as the Loris opcodes. > > The csound sources contain some of the extra stuff that you need to > build a .deb package, however when I tried to create one using > dpkg-buildpackage I got a completely uninformative error message. So > that doesn't look like the way to go either. > > That leaves the option of either installing one of the prebuilt binary > tar.gz packages from sourceforge, or of building from source. However > I don't want to have a version of csound in /usr and a different > version in /usr/local because that also might become a very big > headache, in which case the only option I can see is build from > source, but to configure it to install into /usr rather than > /usr/local. This would obviously mean simply overwriting the files > installed using dpkg/apt. This would obviously be pretty ugly too, but > I reckon that it shouldn't have any adverse side effects and that it > should simply correct itself once the Ubuntu maintainers finally get > around to version 5. > > Still, as I said, this is a very ugly solution. Is there a better one > I haven't thought of? > > Robert Thank you for reporting the bug. (#138513). That will ultimately help many people.
-Cory -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
