Compile Guncash

[Tommy Trussell]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.trussell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Colin Law <clanlaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6 April 2015 at 19:34, Dennis Powless <claven123 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, I had to reinstall ubuntu and went to install gncash following the
> > > directions found at the get deb website, first installing the
> repository
> > > then I ran the code to install gnucash, but I got the 6.x.1 version not
> > the
> > > 6.x.6 version....
> >
> > What do you see if, in a terminal, you run
> >
> > apt-cache policy gnucash
> >
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Dennis Powless <claven123 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> dennis at dennis-Linux04:~$ apt-cache policy gnucash
>> gnucash:
>>   Installed: 1:2.6.1-2
>>   Candidate: 1:2.6.6-1~getdeb1
>>   Version table:
>>      1:2.6.6-1~getdeb1 0
>>         500 http://archive.getdeb.net/ubuntu/ trusty-getdeb/apps amd64
>> Packages
>>  *** 1:2.6.1-2 0
>>         500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe amd64
>> Packages
>>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>> N: Ignoring file 'getdeb.list.bck' in directory '/etc/apt/sources.list.d/'
>> as it has an invalid filename extension
>> N: Ignoring file 'getdeb.list.bck' in directory '/etc/apt/sources.list.d/'
>> as it has an invalid filename extension
>> dennis at dennis-Linux04:~$
>>
>
> The numbers are confusing, but that looks good. You have GnuCash version
> 2.6.6 available and version 2.6.1 installed (both from getdeb.net). The
> latest available from the Ubuntu repository is version 2.6.1. If you run
>
> $ apt-get upgrade
>
> your system should install GnuCash 2.6.6.
>
>

One more thought -- since it didn't already do the right thing, are you
running Ubuntu "Trusty" version 14.04, or some other distro or version of
linux? What does the terminal say when you issue the command? (sorry I left
the sudo out before)

$ sudo apt-get upgrade



> -----
>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>>
>
>