I installed a program by getting its source code, and then running `sudo make install`; how to make `apt-get` know about it?I want to use Ruby built from source, and also use GvimWhat's the “right thing to do” when latest version of some gnu software is not available via apt-getHow to replace PulseAudio package with self-compiled one?Package from APT repo, dependencies installed manually (in /usr/local…); how to tell APT?Is there a way to tell apt about a manually installed program?How to add software manually installed without apt or dpkg to the dpkg -l list?How to fake a package version installed?How to install the latest version of poppler?How to trick apt dependencies?How to upgrade poppler-utils to latest version?How to tell Ubuntu where to install a program and how to tell where an existing program was installed?How to install recommend packages from a file (package.deb)?Debian's Depend: tag doesn't work with apt-getUsing sudo apt-get install, why no source code?Install celestia on Ubuntu 16.04CUDA sample code did not get installed through sudo apt-get install nvidia-cuda-toolkit; any solutions?Unmet dependencies when trying to install r-base
Emission vs reflection
Is publishing runnable code instead of pseudo code shunned?
Are optimal hyperparameters still optimal for a deeper neural net architecture?
Compatibility level of SQL Server
Microtype expansion gets disabled when fontsize is changed! (lualatex)
Was playing with both hands ever allowed in chess?
Was there a "mechanist" program of early rationalists, like Descartes and Leibniz?
Visual Studio Code PHP Intelephense Keep Showing Not Necessary Error
During a long rest if someone is fully rested, can they keep watch longer than 2 hours?
Prospective employer asking for my current pay slip during interview
Tension in a massless string being pulled at its ends with unequal forces
How do you say the total amount of time that has been spent in a job position?
Best spot within a human to place redundant heart
How can I repair a leak in a PVC water line without bringing down the system for an extended period of time?
What are examples of (collections of) papers which "close" a field?
Prefix all commands in shell
What does "a flight to quality" mean?
Is there a way to add salted hashing to my user authentication without breaking my former login server
What is the purpose of the rules in counterpoint composition?
mimic a image frame
Which object has been to space the most times?
Is it academically dishonest to submit the same project to two different classes in the same semester?
In Germany, why does the burden of proof fall on authorities rather than the company or individual when it comes to possible illegal funds?
Do you need to reveal which specific tunnel you’re attempting to claim?
I installed a program by getting its source code, and then running `sudo make install`; how to make `apt-get` know about it?
I want to use Ruby built from source, and also use GvimWhat's the “right thing to do” when latest version of some gnu software is not available via apt-getHow to replace PulseAudio package with self-compiled one?Package from APT repo, dependencies installed manually (in /usr/local…); how to tell APT?Is there a way to tell apt about a manually installed program?How to add software manually installed without apt or dpkg to the dpkg -l list?How to fake a package version installed?How to install the latest version of poppler?How to trick apt dependencies?How to upgrade poppler-utils to latest version?How to tell Ubuntu where to install a program and how to tell where an existing program was installed?How to install recommend packages from a file (package.deb)?Debian's Depend: tag doesn't work with apt-getUsing sudo apt-get install, why no source code?Install celestia on Ubuntu 16.04CUDA sample code did not get installed through sudo apt-get install nvidia-cuda-toolkit; any solutions?Unmet dependencies when trying to install r-base
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
I installed program (call it, for example,progA
) by building it from source code, and then finally calling sudo make install
and sudo ldconfig
.
However, it seems apt-get
hasn't gotten the memo, because when installing progB
, which depends on progA
, apt-get
recommends I also install progA
. Why is this, and what could I do?
apt package-management make
add a comment
|
I installed program (call it, for example,progA
) by building it from source code, and then finally calling sudo make install
and sudo ldconfig
.
However, it seems apt-get
hasn't gotten the memo, because when installing progB
, which depends on progA
, apt-get
recommends I also install progA
. Why is this, and what could I do?
apt package-management make
I think you have to installprogB
manually too...
– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
11
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
6
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50
add a comment
|
I installed program (call it, for example,progA
) by building it from source code, and then finally calling sudo make install
and sudo ldconfig
.
However, it seems apt-get
hasn't gotten the memo, because when installing progB
, which depends on progA
, apt-get
recommends I also install progA
. Why is this, and what could I do?
apt package-management make
I installed program (call it, for example,progA
) by building it from source code, and then finally calling sudo make install
and sudo ldconfig
.
However, it seems apt-get
hasn't gotten the memo, because when installing progB
, which depends on progA
, apt-get
recommends I also install progA
. Why is this, and what could I do?
apt package-management make
apt package-management make
edited Dec 4 '15 at 1:00
Braiam
56.7k21 gold badges148 silver badges230 bronze badges
56.7k21 gold badges148 silver badges230 bronze badges
asked Dec 3 '15 at 6:41
user390136user390136
I think you have to installprogB
manually too...
– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
11
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
6
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50
add a comment
|
I think you have to installprogB
manually too...
– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
11
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
6
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50
I think you have to install
progB
manually too...– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
I think you have to install
progB
manually too...– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
11
11
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
6
6
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR checkinstall
is your friend ;)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
After a installation with sudo make install
your package manager knows absolutely nothing about this installation. But it knows all about a package with the same name in the Ubuntu repositories or in a PPA.
Use sudo checkinstall
instead of sudo make install
and use a higher version as the version in the repository to be sure, that your package manager accepts this version as correct dependency for ProgB
.
Further information:
checkinstall
is really nifty, since it follows what the make install
command would do, in order to figure out how to build a package.
This means that if you install a program using make install
, but then want to repent for your sins, all you have to do is sudo checkinstall -D make install
, and that command will:
follow
make install
to figure out what it doescopy-cat
make install
, except in *.deb package forminstall from the package (exactly as
make install
would have, given point 1)) except also letapt-get
know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly wheremake install
would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put bymake install
in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during thecheckinstall
process will let you choose (obviously though, the choice is there so you can exercise it on a case-to-case basis)
Bonus: you can also remove a package (call it progA
again) installed using make install
that odes not have make uninstall
support by following the checkinstall
process outlined so far, and then simply doing:
dpkg -r progA
18
Wowcheckinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!
– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
add a comment
|
Three options:
create a fake package for
progA
: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).create a package for
progA
, easier if it has acheckinstall
option: How to trick apt dependencies?Build also
progB
from sources.
1
4. Uninstall the version ofprogA
you compiled and install theapt-get
version. 5. Install theapt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.
– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
add a comment
|
I'd recommend using uupdate
from devscripts
and build the package like the original was build before.
Install required packages
$ sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts
Download the the old package from official repository (will use MediaWiki
as example) and the new tar-ball from upstream.
$ mkdir ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ cd ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ apt-get source mediawiki
$ wget https://releases.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.26/mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz
Run uupdate
to create a new source folder from the upstream tar-ball and the old debian/control
$ cd mediawiki-1.19.14+dfsg # depends on your Ubuntu version
$ uupdate ../mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz 1.26.0
$ cd ../mediawiki-1.26.0
Now you should check if you need to make changes to debian/control
etc files. If you're done you can build the deb package and install it
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
$ cd ..
$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f705369%2fi-installed-a-program-by-getting-its-source-code-and-then-running-sudo-make-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR checkinstall
is your friend ;)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
After a installation with sudo make install
your package manager knows absolutely nothing about this installation. But it knows all about a package with the same name in the Ubuntu repositories or in a PPA.
Use sudo checkinstall
instead of sudo make install
and use a higher version as the version in the repository to be sure, that your package manager accepts this version as correct dependency for ProgB
.
Further information:
checkinstall
is really nifty, since it follows what the make install
command would do, in order to figure out how to build a package.
This means that if you install a program using make install
, but then want to repent for your sins, all you have to do is sudo checkinstall -D make install
, and that command will:
follow
make install
to figure out what it doescopy-cat
make install
, except in *.deb package forminstall from the package (exactly as
make install
would have, given point 1)) except also letapt-get
know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly wheremake install
would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put bymake install
in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during thecheckinstall
process will let you choose (obviously though, the choice is there so you can exercise it on a case-to-case basis)
Bonus: you can also remove a package (call it progA
again) installed using make install
that odes not have make uninstall
support by following the checkinstall
process outlined so far, and then simply doing:
dpkg -r progA
18
Wowcheckinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!
– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
add a comment
|
TL;DR checkinstall
is your friend ;)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
After a installation with sudo make install
your package manager knows absolutely nothing about this installation. But it knows all about a package with the same name in the Ubuntu repositories or in a PPA.
Use sudo checkinstall
instead of sudo make install
and use a higher version as the version in the repository to be sure, that your package manager accepts this version as correct dependency for ProgB
.
Further information:
checkinstall
is really nifty, since it follows what the make install
command would do, in order to figure out how to build a package.
This means that if you install a program using make install
, but then want to repent for your sins, all you have to do is sudo checkinstall -D make install
, and that command will:
follow
make install
to figure out what it doescopy-cat
make install
, except in *.deb package forminstall from the package (exactly as
make install
would have, given point 1)) except also letapt-get
know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly wheremake install
would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put bymake install
in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during thecheckinstall
process will let you choose (obviously though, the choice is there so you can exercise it on a case-to-case basis)
Bonus: you can also remove a package (call it progA
again) installed using make install
that odes not have make uninstall
support by following the checkinstall
process outlined so far, and then simply doing:
dpkg -r progA
18
Wowcheckinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!
– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
add a comment
|
TL;DR checkinstall
is your friend ;)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
After a installation with sudo make install
your package manager knows absolutely nothing about this installation. But it knows all about a package with the same name in the Ubuntu repositories or in a PPA.
Use sudo checkinstall
instead of sudo make install
and use a higher version as the version in the repository to be sure, that your package manager accepts this version as correct dependency for ProgB
.
Further information:
checkinstall
is really nifty, since it follows what the make install
command would do, in order to figure out how to build a package.
This means that if you install a program using make install
, but then want to repent for your sins, all you have to do is sudo checkinstall -D make install
, and that command will:
follow
make install
to figure out what it doescopy-cat
make install
, except in *.deb package forminstall from the package (exactly as
make install
would have, given point 1)) except also letapt-get
know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly wheremake install
would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put bymake install
in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during thecheckinstall
process will let you choose (obviously though, the choice is there so you can exercise it on a case-to-case basis)
Bonus: you can also remove a package (call it progA
again) installed using make install
that odes not have make uninstall
support by following the checkinstall
process outlined so far, and then simply doing:
dpkg -r progA
TL;DR checkinstall
is your friend ;)
sudo apt-get install checkinstall
After a installation with sudo make install
your package manager knows absolutely nothing about this installation. But it knows all about a package with the same name in the Ubuntu repositories or in a PPA.
Use sudo checkinstall
instead of sudo make install
and use a higher version as the version in the repository to be sure, that your package manager accepts this version as correct dependency for ProgB
.
Further information:
checkinstall
is really nifty, since it follows what the make install
command would do, in order to figure out how to build a package.
This means that if you install a program using make install
, but then want to repent for your sins, all you have to do is sudo checkinstall -D make install
, and that command will:
follow
make install
to figure out what it doescopy-cat
make install
, except in *.deb package forminstall from the package (exactly as
make install
would have, given point 1)) except also letapt-get
know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly wheremake install
would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put bymake install
in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during thecheckinstall
process will let you choose (obviously though, the choice is there so you can exercise it on a case-to-case basis)
Bonus: you can also remove a package (call it progA
again) installed using make install
that odes not have make uninstall
support by following the checkinstall
process outlined so far, and then simply doing:
dpkg -r progA
edited May 23 '17 at 12:39
Community♦
1
1
answered Dec 3 '15 at 7:30
A.B.A.B.
74.3k12 gold badges193 silver badges281 bronze badges
74.3k12 gold badges193 silver badges281 bronze badges
18
Wowcheckinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!
– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
add a comment
|
18
Wowcheckinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!
– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
18
18
Wow
checkinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
Wow
checkinstall
-- THE WORLD needs to know about this!– user390136
Dec 3 '15 at 15:57
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
I added some more detail to your answer, based on trying to implement it yesterday, and the recommendations from this meta question -- please feel free to further edit it!
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:44
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Which details do you mean?
– A.B.
Dec 4 '15 at 16:46
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
Oh, I think they haven't appeared yet, because it is in edit review -- if you click on the link to the meta question, you will see what they are (originally, I had put them in the question body, but the recommendation was that I should put them in the accepted answer body).
– user390136
Dec 4 '15 at 16:48
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
The package documentation directory ./doc-pak does not exist. Should I create a default set of package docs?
– n8chz
Dec 11 '15 at 21:25
add a comment
|
Three options:
create a fake package for
progA
: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).create a package for
progA
, easier if it has acheckinstall
option: How to trick apt dependencies?Build also
progB
from sources.
1
4. Uninstall the version ofprogA
you compiled and install theapt-get
version. 5. Install theapt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.
– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
add a comment
|
Three options:
create a fake package for
progA
: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).create a package for
progA
, easier if it has acheckinstall
option: How to trick apt dependencies?Build also
progB
from sources.
1
4. Uninstall the version ofprogA
you compiled and install theapt-get
version. 5. Install theapt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.
– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
add a comment
|
Three options:
create a fake package for
progA
: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).create a package for
progA
, easier if it has acheckinstall
option: How to trick apt dependencies?Build also
progB
from sources.
Three options:
create a fake package for
progA
: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).create a package for
progA
, easier if it has acheckinstall
option: How to trick apt dependencies?Build also
progB
from sources.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:36
Community♦
1
1
answered Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
RmanoRmano
27.6k9 gold badges85 silver badges155 bronze badges
27.6k9 gold badges85 silver badges155 bronze badges
1
4. Uninstall the version ofprogA
you compiled and install theapt-get
version. 5. Install theapt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.
– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
add a comment
|
1
4. Uninstall the version ofprogA
you compiled and install theapt-get
version. 5. Install theapt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.
– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
1
1
4. Uninstall the version of
progA
you compiled and install the apt-get
version. 5. Install the apt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
4. Uninstall the version of
progA
you compiled and install the apt-get
version. 5. Install the apt-get
package over the compiled version and hope for the best.– jwodder
Dec 3 '15 at 13:38
add a comment
|
I'd recommend using uupdate
from devscripts
and build the package like the original was build before.
Install required packages
$ sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts
Download the the old package from official repository (will use MediaWiki
as example) and the new tar-ball from upstream.
$ mkdir ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ cd ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ apt-get source mediawiki
$ wget https://releases.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.26/mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz
Run uupdate
to create a new source folder from the upstream tar-ball and the old debian/control
$ cd mediawiki-1.19.14+dfsg # depends on your Ubuntu version
$ uupdate ../mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz 1.26.0
$ cd ../mediawiki-1.26.0
Now you should check if you need to make changes to debian/control
etc files. If you're done you can build the deb package and install it
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
$ cd ..
$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
add a comment
|
I'd recommend using uupdate
from devscripts
and build the package like the original was build before.
Install required packages
$ sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts
Download the the old package from official repository (will use MediaWiki
as example) and the new tar-ball from upstream.
$ mkdir ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ cd ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ apt-get source mediawiki
$ wget https://releases.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.26/mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz
Run uupdate
to create a new source folder from the upstream tar-ball and the old debian/control
$ cd mediawiki-1.19.14+dfsg # depends on your Ubuntu version
$ uupdate ../mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz 1.26.0
$ cd ../mediawiki-1.26.0
Now you should check if you need to make changes to debian/control
etc files. If you're done you can build the deb package and install it
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
$ cd ..
$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
add a comment
|
I'd recommend using uupdate
from devscripts
and build the package like the original was build before.
Install required packages
$ sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts
Download the the old package from official repository (will use MediaWiki
as example) and the new tar-ball from upstream.
$ mkdir ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ cd ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ apt-get source mediawiki
$ wget https://releases.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.26/mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz
Run uupdate
to create a new source folder from the upstream tar-ball and the old debian/control
$ cd mediawiki-1.19.14+dfsg # depends on your Ubuntu version
$ uupdate ../mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz 1.26.0
$ cd ../mediawiki-1.26.0
Now you should check if you need to make changes to debian/control
etc files. If you're done you can build the deb package and install it
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
$ cd ..
$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
I'd recommend using uupdate
from devscripts
and build the package like the original was build before.
Install required packages
$ sudo apt-get install build-essential devscripts
Download the the old package from official repository (will use MediaWiki
as example) and the new tar-ball from upstream.
$ mkdir ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ cd ~/Downloads/mediawiki
$ apt-get source mediawiki
$ wget https://releases.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.26/mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz
Run uupdate
to create a new source folder from the upstream tar-ball and the old debian/control
$ cd mediawiki-1.19.14+dfsg # depends on your Ubuntu version
$ uupdate ../mediawiki-1.26.0.tar.gz 1.26.0
$ cd ../mediawiki-1.26.0
Now you should check if you need to make changes to debian/control
etc files. If you're done you can build the deb package and install it
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
$ cd ..
$ sudo dpkg -i *.deb
answered Dec 4 '15 at 1:54
GermarGermar
4,6692 gold badges16 silver badges33 bronze badges
4,6692 gold badges16 silver badges33 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f705369%2fi-installed-a-program-by-getting-its-source-code-and-then-running-sudo-make-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I think you have to install
progB
manually too...– Parto
Dec 3 '15 at 6:46
11
It can not be assumed that the 'custom' version you have created is the same as the package, that is a dependency. A shortcut (not recommended) would be to install the real package, and then overwrite the binary with your 'special'. As you have not been specific, I can provide no further advice.
– david6
Dec 3 '15 at 6:51
6
Just don't do this. Always keep software managed by your package management strictly separate from software you compile yourself.
– Reinier Post
Dec 3 '15 at 10:50