Need workaround for outdated csound version

[Cory K.]

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* <ireneshusband at gmail.com
<mailto:ireneshusband at gmail.com>> 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 Ubuntu's version of csound is massively outdated.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