LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This 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!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-10-2009, 03:17 PM   #1
davidstvz
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 405

Rep: Reputation: 30
rpm help


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?
 
Old 03-10-2009, 06:08 PM   #2
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 17,961

Rep: Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693Reputation: 3693
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidstvz View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 11:37 AM   #3
davidstvz
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 405

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Aren't the newer 64 bit intel and amd chips backwards compatible with old x_86 programs?

I ended up installing the latest code from source successfully, but the guy still needs version 110.0

should i586 rpms work?

Last edited by davidstvz; 03-11-2009 at 11:41 AM.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 12:50 PM   #4
davidstvz
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 405

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
ok, I found the source for the version I need in an rpm. Why is the source in an rpm instead of a tgz, I can't say.

I also can't say where the source ended up after I "installed" the source rpm. It's not in the usual place ( /usr/share/smlnj ).
 
Old 03-11-2009, 12:56 PM   #5
battletroll
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Alabama
Distribution: Slackware, Solaris,Fedora, CentOS, Redhat, SGI
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 18
src install

The src installed itself in the rpmbuild root dir.
It should be in either:
/usr/src/redhat (my case)
or /root/rpmbuild
or /home/<username>/rpmbuild

I am not familiar with the app but it will create a file called something.spec in the SPEC dir which in in the rpmbuild root path

go to this base dir and then type:
rpmbuild -bb ./SPEC/<filename>.spec

It will build the rpm needed for your system in the /<base dir>/RPM/<arch>
 
Old 03-11-2009, 01:18 PM   #6
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 29,331
Blog Entries: 55

Rep: Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531Reputation: 3531
Also please note that if this is a regular application there is absolutely no reason to build packages as root account user.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 01:47 PM   #7
davidstvz
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 405

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
well, I want the program installed for use by all users. it's a programming environment (ml)
 
Old 03-11-2009, 03:06 PM   #8
T74marcell
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 102

Rep: Reputation: 18
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.

Arch Linux

Last edited by T74marcell; 03-14-2009 at 02:07 AM.
 
Old 03-11-2009, 03:34 PM   #9
davidstvz
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 405

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
but...

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).

Fun stuff.

Last edited by davidstvz; 03-11-2009 at 03:38 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rpm -ihv hp_qla2x00src-8.01.07.25-1.linux.rpm during Qlogic driver installation Dennisliu Linux - Software 5 09-10-2008 06:08 PM
RHEL 5: rpm --aid or rpmdb-redhat.rpm no longer supported mjcocat Linux - Enterprise 1 06-05-2008 09:41 PM
counter part of "rpm -ivh --force kernel....rpm in slackware b0nd Slackware 2 01-28-2006 08:46 PM
rpm error only says"rpm: relocation error: rpm: undefined symbol: poptAliasOptions" dlrsims Linux - Newbie 2 11-14-2003 10:22 PM
.src.rpm, .i386.rpm and .i686.rpm hhegab Linux - Software 2 06-19-2003 08:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration