Conversation
wiki/en/en-Installation-for-Linux.md
Outdated
| If you're on amd64 **Debian**/**Ubuntu**, you may try the compiled .deb packages from GitHub Actions. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page | ||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we were in the Ubuntu repos?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. We're in the Debian repos. Maybe this also adds us to the Ubuntu repo automatically?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm. I get "Unable to locate package jamulus" when I do apt install jamulus on Debian 10 anyway...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh wait it's only for Bullseye. OK. Very few people will be using that :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bullseye will (probably) be the new Debian "stable" in a few months now.
Maybe it worth to put a warning on this while Bullseye isn't yet the "stable" version of Debian?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is usually trivial
I disagree. Debian 10 (buster) and Debian 11 (Bulleyes) are 2 different distributions with 2 different toolchain and 2 different packages libraries versions. It's not that unusual that a simple package rebuild fails.
My opinion is to say:
if an official distribution package exists, install the package of the distribution according to the usual procedures on it.
if not, compile and install Jamulus by following step by step the instructions on the Linux installation page.
Agreed.
Installing testing package on a stable Ubuntu or Debian is not recommended!
It's a general Debian/Ubuntu advice. It looks to be outside of the Jamulus's project jurisdiction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is usually trivial
I disagree. Debian 10 (buster) and Debian 11 (Bulleyes) are 2 different distributions with 2 different toolchain and 2 different packages libraries versions. It's not that unusual that a simple package rebuild fails.
I have recompiled a lot of packages not available yet in Buster but available in testing from source.
It is really usualy trivial (it should be the case for jamulus) if all the deps build are available on Buster. And that is the case for Jamulus, everything needed to compile/build Jamulus on this system is available (as listed on the actual install linux page for the 3.6.2).
You have just to add the debian testing source (and only the source) to sources.list
# Uncomment deb-src lines below then 'apt-get update' to enable 'apt-get source'
deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster main contrib non-free
deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian-security/ buster/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates main contrib non-free
# sources from testing/unstable
deb-src http://httpredir.debian.org/debian unstable main
And then (for jamulus):
apt-get source jamulus
cd jamulus-3.6.2+dfsg1/
sudo apt-get build-dep jamulus # this will download and install the build deps from Buster packages
debuild -b -uc -us
cd ../
sudo apt install ./jamulus_3.6.2+dfsg1.arm64.deb # for example
I prefer using apt install instead of dpkg -i because apt install all the deps in one step.
What is very strange is that on this machine compiling from source works, not building the deb.
Something seems to be broken or missing in the deb source for the translations files.
Installing testing package on a stable Ubuntu or Debian is not recommended!
It's a general Debian/Ubuntu advice. It looks to be outside of the Jamulus's project jurisdiction.
Yes but adding testing or unstable repo in sources.list to install Jamulus with apt on a stable Debian or Ubuntu is not a good idea.
It is better (and it works fine following the doc) to install from sources if no official distribution (or team) package available. (IMHO)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have recompiled a lot of packages not available yet in Buster but available in testing from source.
It can/might work sometime but it's not to be recommanded to the end users in any way.
(BTW, I know how a backport works)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think a backport is already in preparation: jamulussoftware/jamulus#896 (comment)
let's just wait for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Much better to tell the end users to use a package from buster-backports rather than backporting the package himself.
|
This prosebot sure is spammy... |
wiki/en/en-Installation-for-Linux.md
Outdated
| If you're on amd64 **Debian**/**Ubuntu**, you may try the compiled .deb packages from GitHub Actions. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page | ||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh wait it's only for Bullseye. OK. Very few people will be using that :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sandwiching the compile section between the binary install method and the sound setup make this doc rather hard to read I think. I'm not too bothered though as the number of Jamulus Linux client users is tiny, but at some point we should move the compilation instructions to an INSTALL.md file (and pull it out of the server install docs as well) as is the general convention once people can just apt-get.
EDIT: There's quite a lot that needs sorting out on this page yet though still.
wiki/en/en-Installation-for-Linux.md
Outdated
| If you're on amd64 **Debian**/**Ubuntu**, you may try the compiled .deb packages from GitHub Actions. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page | ||
| 1. Download the jamulus_latest_ubuntu_amd64.deb file from the [Jamulus GitHub release](https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/releases/tag/latest) page |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no *.deb package in the assets of latest release on the Github repo. Only the source code archives.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. But they will be there. See the beta release: https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/releases/tag/r_3_7_0beta1
|
@gilgongo if you think it's ready, you can merge it. |
wiki/en/en-Installation-for-Linux.md
Outdated
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| If you can't use one of these options, you need to compile Jamulus from source. That's quite easy: | ||
| If you can't use one of above options, you need to compile Jamulus from source: |
gilgongo
left a comment
gilgongo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heh - it's even more complicated than it was before we had binaries. But no matter at the least the information's there.
This doesn't sound good. Any ideas on how to make it easier? |
|
"Interleaving" binary install instructions with source compilation, then having "if / then" references to each after that is not ideal :-) But it's not big deal really. Once we're in the current versions of Ubuntu and Debian (and maybe other?) distro's repos, we can follow the convention of kicking compilation instructions into a INSTALL.md for the tiny number of people who would want to do that. BTW it's a pity we don't have a jamlus-server package, as we'd be able to do the same for server operators. Can't have everything I guess. |
|
Yes. The headless .deb file might partly solve it. |
| From the command line, execute the command `jamulus`, or if you compiled from source `Jamulus` with a (with a capital 'J'). This will start the Jamulus Client. | ||
|
|
||
| If you get problems with sound breaking up (in particular XRUN errors reported by JACK/QjackCtl) try setting bigger values (e.g. 256 frames or 3 periods) in step 3 above. Lower ones (e.g. 64 frames) could bring better performance but maybe more sound problems. See the [troubleshooting page](Client-Troubleshooting) otherwise. | ||
| If you get problems with sound breaking up (in particular XRUN errors reported by JACK/QjackCtl) try setting bigger values (e.g. 256 frames or 3 periods). Lower ones (e.g. 64 frames) could bring better performance but maybe more sound problems. See the [troubleshooting page](Client-Troubleshooting) otherwise. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
better performance
Should really say "lower latency" -- better performance is very vague. What's "better" about more XRUNs, if that's what it causes someone? Indeed, it's more that it requires a higher specification system - i.e. demands better performance, rather than provides it.
Anyway... for another time :).
5 participants
I haven't tested the
sudo apt-get install -fon a clean system yet!