On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:23:19 +0800, Timo Sivula <timo.sivula@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 22:32, Chris Cannam wrote: > > > Hmm, there's a question. I would be inclined to apt-get remove the CCRMA > > package, download the sources, build, and install using "make install" rather > > than bothering with an RPM. Probably nothing else depends on Rosegarden, so > > that shouldn't cause any consistency problems, and it can always be replaced > > by a later CCRMA RPM (Rosegarden's "make uninstall" should work fine). > > This is beyond what I dare to do. My software competence ends at the > ./configure, make, make install level and I do not want to replace an > installed rpm with a compiled binary due to the maintenance problems > araising. > > I found .spec files in the source tar ball. Could they be used to create > a proper rpm of the sources? > > br, Timo > Timo, You can test what Chris is worried about without breaking your RPM based dependency setup. Install two copies - the Planet copy and a CVS copy. change your search path based on which you want to use. (Chris - please correctly me if I get something wrong here. I'm no better with software than Timo!) 1) Download CVS or a tarball of a more recent RG snapshot. 2) Put it somewhere local 3) ./configure --prefix=/home/time/RG 4) make and see if it builds. This is where the dependency problems will show up. 5) If it makes OK, then mkdir /home/timo/RG 6) make install should put it in /home/timo/RG 7) Edit .bashrc and set your path such that /home/timo/RG is forst in the search path 8) Run RG and see if you get the new version. I think this sort of strategy will leave the normal version untouched. You can edit you path again to go back and forth, or probably execute something in your xterm that sets up which oe you want to use. (I don't know how to change my path. I'm a dummy!) Maybe give it a try? I'm interested in your results! - Mark
