Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Several months ago, I installed a particular version of smlnj (110.5-something) from an rpm. It worked fine. The guy using it wants an older version now, so I uninstalled with:
rpm -e smlnj
And "rpm -q smlnj" verifies that nothing is installed.
Then I tried to reinstall using "rpm -ivh smlnj-110.0.7-411.i586.rpm" (AMD 64 chip, Suse Linux 10 OS) and upon running sml, sml says:
sml: unable to determine architecture/operating system
I've also tried installing several other versions (
Why does the uninstall use -e (wouldn't -u be more appropriate)? Is it possible that I uninstalled incorrectly and something is conflicting with the new installations?
Any other ideas?
"-e" (erase) makes sense too, as does "-u" (uninstall).
And if you look at what you've written, the problem is right there:
Then I tried to reinstall using "rpm -ivh smlnj-110.0.7-411.i586.rpm" (AMD 64 chip, Suse Linux 10 OS)
You're trying to install an x86 (in this case, i586), package, on the x64 platform. You need the right architecture to make it work. You can either download the AMD64 .RPM file, or you can download the source and compile it from there.
Storing source files in an RPM packages can be an advantage if the distribution in question has a specific default location for storing source files. This concept made more sense in those days when disk space was limited (I still have a few 280 MB hard drives around) - nowadays it doesn't even matter if you have the same sources stored a few times in different location, as they take less space then the audio and video file collections.
Back to the topic:
You should be able to run 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system, but this is risky in some cases where the application does bitwise operations. In such a case a 'long' (usually 32-bit bit, but can also default to the native CPU bit-width) and 'long long' (should be 64-bit always, until 128-bit CPU's become de facto standards) can yield different results. The application will not crash, it's worse: you get trash results.
So be careful with such an approach. Also note that the above problem is not resolved by simply recompiling under a 64-bit system: the source need to be adjusted.
athlon64's were around for a very long time and caused no problems for windows users that I know of (because, I thought, they were completely backwards compatible).
I mean, I have a B.S. in Computer Science so I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I thought the CPU designers made it backwards compatible at least for already compiled 32 bit programs. EDIT: perhaps the difference is that my OS is 64 bit in this case, not just the CPU?
I just tried compiling this program from source and it fails because it cannot detect the architecture (hijacking the detection script and forcing it to be x86 causes it to fail spectacularly as it tries to compile instead).