[Nut-upsuser] nut on armhf, r-pi4b IOW

[Charles Lepple]

On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 09 January 2020 16:59:12 Charles Lepple wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Gene Heskett <gheskett at shentel.net> wrote:
>>> So for starters, what's the best ./configure command line?
>> 
>> There’s this page for matching the layout of an existing Debian
>> install:
>> https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/wiki/Building-NUT-on-Debian,-Ra
>> spbian-and-Ubuntu
>> 
>> But remind me, what are you hoping to get from the later version of
>> NUT? (We don’t have code for Modbus yet, per my other email about the
>> two varieties of Smart-UPS 1500.)
> 
> Experience building it?  Since it won't actually be doing any shutdown 
> type control, I figure once built and installed, I can copy this 
> machines /etc/ups contents over what is going to be installed and be not 
> more than one edit away from running a "upsc myups" and getting a report 
> from it.  Or am I dreaming? 

I can't argue with getting experience building it, but as the wiki page hints, there are still some distribution-specific things that the generic NUT build can't handle, like installing the correct systemd startup scripts. Usually that build procedure is a stop-gap for upgrading just one driver, by installing over a Debian package.

> I do note that this ups has 3 rj45's on the end of it, but all my 
> ethernet in that box is committed. I'd assume 2 of them are for surge 
> absorption loop-thru's, but none of the 3 are actually labeled, so I've 
> no clue which is which w/o reading what little docs came with it.  
> Shrug. :)

(cue obligatory rant about vendors misusing standard connectors in proprietary ways, though you are right that two of them are for surges)

> Down to the mega-command, I left out the ssl and NSS, had to install 
> libusb-dev but I see its not going to make docs. That needs fixed as 
> most of that stuff is already installed. But adding --with-doc opens 
> another can of worms:
> 
> A "make" says it needs aclocal, which is part of automake, but its newer 
> than what it wants,  which is aclocal-1.14, but I have automake 
> 1:1.16.1-4.
> 
> Suggested fix?

Not sure where that message is coming from, but glad it worked with the newer aclocal. (Did you use the release tarball, or a Git checkout?)