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;









46


















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?










share|improve this question



























  • 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

















46


















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?










share|improve this question



























  • 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













46













46









46


17






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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 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

















  • 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
















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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















56



















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:



  1. follow make install to figure out what it does


  2. copy-cat make install, except in *.deb package form


  3. install from the package (exactly as make install would have, given point 1)) except also let apt-get know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly where make install would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put by make install in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during the checkinstall 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





share|improve this answer






















  • 18





    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












  • 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


















13



















Three options:



  1. create a fake package for progA: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).


  2. create a package for progA, easier if it has a checkinstall option: How to trick apt dependencies?


  3. Build also progB from sources.






share|improve this answer






















  • 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


















1



















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





share|improve this answer


























    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
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    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









    56



















    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:



    1. follow make install to figure out what it does


    2. copy-cat make install, except in *.deb package form


    3. install from the package (exactly as make install would have, given point 1)) except also let apt-get know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly where make install would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put by make install in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during the checkinstall 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





    share|improve this answer






















    • 18





      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












    • 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















    56



















    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:



    1. follow make install to figure out what it does


    2. copy-cat make install, except in *.deb package form


    3. install from the package (exactly as make install would have, given point 1)) except also let apt-get know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly where make install would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put by make install in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during the checkinstall 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





    share|improve this answer






















    • 18





      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












    • 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













    56















    56











    56









    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:



    1. follow make install to figure out what it does


    2. copy-cat make install, except in *.deb package form


    3. install from the package (exactly as make install would have, given point 1)) except also let apt-get know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly where make install would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put by make install in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during the checkinstall 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





    share|improve this answer
















    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:



    1. follow make install to figure out what it does


    2. copy-cat make install, except in *.deb package form


    3. install from the package (exactly as make install would have, given point 1)) except also let apt-get know about it, and thus overwrite all the files exactly where make install would have put them as long as you choose YES to include the files put by make install in the home directory in the package as well -- a couple of options during the checkinstall 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






    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer








    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





      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












    • 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





      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












    • 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













    13



















    Three options:



    1. create a fake package for progA: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).


    2. create a package for progA, easier if it has a checkinstall option: How to trick apt dependencies?


    3. Build also progB from sources.






    share|improve this answer






















    • 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















    13



















    Three options:



    1. create a fake package for progA: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).


    2. create a package for progA, easier if it has a checkinstall option: How to trick apt dependencies?


    3. Build also progB from sources.






    share|improve this answer






















    • 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













    13















    13











    13









    Three options:



    1. create a fake package for progA: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).


    2. create a package for progA, easier if it has a checkinstall option: How to trick apt dependencies?


    3. Build also progB from sources.






    share|improve this answer
















    Three options:



    1. create a fake package for progA: How to fake a package version installed? (there is an extensive example for TeXlive).


    2. create a package for progA, easier if it has a checkinstall option: How to trick apt dependencies?


    3. Build also progB from sources.







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer








    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 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












    • 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







    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











    1



















    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





    share|improve this answer





























      1



















      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





      share|improve this answer



























        1















        1











        1









        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





        share|improve this answer














        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






        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer










        answered Dec 4 '15 at 1:54









        GermarGermar

        4,6692 gold badges16 silver badges33 bronze badges




        4,6692 gold badges16 silver badges33 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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









            Popular posts from this blog

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?Where does the concept of infected people turning into zombies only after death originate from?Where does the motif of a reanimated human head originate?Where did the notion that Dragons could speak originate?Where does the archetypal image of the 'Grey' alien come from?Where did the suffix '-Man' originate?Where does the notion of being injured or killed by an illusion originate?Where did the term “sophont” originate?Where does the trope of magic spells being driven by advanced technology originate from?Where did the term “the living impaired” originate?