[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: how to build package alsa-utils?



tomas@tuxteam.de wrote on 5/29/20 8:08 AM:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:54:51AM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
>> I am trying to build alsa-utils from source, but am clearly missing something
>> obvious.
>>
>> 1. I executed:
>>   apt-get source alsa-utils
>> and that seemed to run OK, generating:
>>
>> drwxr-xr-x 23 n7dr n7dr    4096 May 29 07:41 alsa-utils-1.1.8
>> -rw-r--r--  1 n7dr n7dr   27076 Apr  9  2019 alsa-utils_1.1.8-2.debian.tar.xz
>> -rw-r--r--  1 n7dr n7dr    2346 Apr  9  2019 alsa-utils_1.1.8-2.dsc
>> -rw-r--r--  1 n7dr n7dr 1019988 Feb 11  2019 alsa-utils_1.1.8.orig.tar.bz2
>>
>> 2. In alsa-utils-1.1.8, there is no BUILD file (which is what I'm used to
>> seeing), but there is an INSTALL file, which says:
>>   for installation you can use these commands:
>>         ./configure
>>         make install
>> so I figured that the normal "./configure; make" would perform the build.
>>
>> 3. There is no ./configure file :-( So there seems to be an inconsistency
>> between the instructions and what is actually supplied.
>>
>> Without a ./configure file, I don't know how to proceed :-(
> 
> Most probably (I'm assuming alsautils is an autoconf package), there
> is a configure.ac from which to generate the configure script. So
> you'd first have to invoke autoconf for that. BUT WAIT!
> 
> This is a Debian package. One of the things Debian does for you is
> to unify all that buildery. So first
> 
>  - install the package "build-essential"
>  - install the packages alsa-util's build depends on:
>    apt-get build-dep alsa-utils
>  - change into alsa-utils-1.1.8
>  - invoke there
>    dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us
>    (look up in the man page what those things mean)
> 
> A finished Debian package apears next to alsa-utils-1.1.8. Unless...
> I've forgotten something, that is. Just come back.
> 

It all looks good.

The build process spewed out an "interesting" number of warnings but no
errors. I guess that debian (and, presumably, upstream) doesn't worry much
about mere warnings.

Anyway, a quick test shows that the binary I was interested in runs as
expected, so now I'm in a position to make some changes to the source in an
attempt to understand why arecord works with a particular set of parameters
that causes my own code to throw a hissy fit.

Thanks very much. A very useful and informative morning.

  Doc

-- 
Web:  http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: