Author Topic: sonic-visualiser_2.5cc1-1_amd64.deb = dependency and package problems  (Read 2342 times)

mark_orion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
There seems to be something wrong with the 64bit Ubuntu package (trying to install on Ubuntu 15.04).
First problem is that the package identifies itself as version 2.4cc-1, not 2.5
Second problem is the dependency to libjack0:amd64 what is a jack1 library. This completely breaks systems using jack2:

sudo dpkg -i sonic-visualiser_2.5cc1-1_amd64.deb
Selecting previously unselected package sonic-visualiser.
(Reading database ... 423781 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack sonic-visualiser_2.5cc1-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking sonic-visualiser (2.4cc-1) ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of sonic-visualiser:
 sonic-visualiser depends on libjack0; however:
  Package libjack0:amd64 is not installed.



cannam

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: sonic-visualiser_2.5cc1-1_amd64.deb = dependency and package problems
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2015, 13:16:41 »
Mm, there probably shouldn't be a dependency on JACK at all, since it does work without it.

Thanks for the report, I'll try to look at these things on Monday (probably won't get time before then I'm afraid).


Chris

cannam

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: sonic-visualiser_2.5cc1-1_amd64.deb = dependency and package problems
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2015, 13:42:25 »
I've updated the Linux packages -- the binaries within them are the same, but I hope these two problems should be fixed now. I've updated the version number, and the dependency is now on jackd rather than libjack<N>.

(I realised that removing the jack dependency from the package would require rebuilding the binary using an alternative linkage for JACK, and I'm quite keen not to alter the binary for things that should be pure packaging issues. Having a dependency on jackd seems quite common for other JACK applications, but I'm not quite sure what the "proper" way to work around this versioning problem is -- let me know if this isn't working for you.)