This is making absolutely no sense to me: I just installed crosstool-ng and I need to install the gcc-arm-linux cross-compiler toolkit on my mac. I used ct-ng arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi and it worked fine. Next step was ct-ng build, which I followed. It resulted, however, in this error.
Your file system in '/usr/local/GCC-ARM-Linux-GNUeabi/.build' is *not* case-sensitive!
I am lost and it's imperative that I install the toolkit in order to cross-compile for a Linux-based micro-controller for a project I'm in.
Managed to fix it by partitioning the disk, creating a small space that was case-sensitive. Basically, I followed this tutorial. This problem and some subsequent ones I was able to fix. However a wild new problem appeared. But that is the subject of another question.
I wanted to install caffe on openSuse.
Just for the record - it worked out for me, I just don't know what's the "exact" way to do this. The things I did maybe aren't really for someone who's new to this, and also it was kind of a "bad installation". My way was the following:
First, I did
make all
This worked, until it complained that some libraries weren't found (libclbas etc.). So I used
ccmake .
to change the paths to the libraries manually. I needed to manually type the paths to the snappy, boost_python, blas, cblas and lapack libs. After doing that I did
cmake .
and then
make
and everything worked. My problem now is - why doesn't make find the libs, and is there a way to fix this? I think the problem was that I didn't have /usr/lib/libcblas.so but /usr/lib/libcblas.so.3, and similar "problems" with the other libraries.
Another thing - when I tried using ccmake/cmake right from the beginning (without the make part first), there weren't any files in my build directory (like $CAFFE_ROOT/build/examples or $CAFFE_ROOT/build/tools were empty), so the mnist tutorial for example wasn't working. That's why I first called
make all
, what may seem strange to you.
Of course I know how to fix this stuff, but I would like to know how the correct way for a "clean and simple installation" is. Did is miss anything when using make/cmake, is this some kind of inconsistency in caffe or something else? And, what is the clean way to do this?
Maybe look at the Ubuntu installation guide? http://caffe.berkeleyvision.org/install_apt.html
It mentions all the different packages you might need. I couldn't find openSuse installation instructions - but you should be able to translate the apt-get commands for your platform.
I want to build a GUI for some fortran code I have. GTK-Fortran seemed like a simple option, but I'm having trouble getting everything installed in the correct place.
I am using Windows 8. I have gfortran (version 4.8.1), Cmake, and GTK+ 3 installed. As far as I can tell, the last thing I need to do is include GTK-Fortran, which I download from https://github.com/jerryd/gtk-fortran (the link to download the .zip file is on the right side of the page), but all of the instructions on what to do with it are incredibly vague to me. The INSTALL instructions seem to want me to make a new directory, C:\build, and then do something with cmake, but I'm not sure what that something is or how to do it.
I have GTK+ 3 in C:\GTK, and its bin is included in the path. I would like to just put the GTK-Fortran files within the GTK folder, but I don't think that will actually give me access to the GTK-Fortran files.
Could someone give me very clear instructions on what to do with the files for GTK-Fortran so that I can call them from my own fortran code?
The simplest way for using gtk-fortran under Windows is to install MSYS2/MINGW64, following the installation steps described in the wiki of the project:
https://github.com/vmagnin/gtk-fortran/wiki#windows
Very often we need to install software from its source code. Most of the time I just hit "make world" or "make all" then it will work like a charm. But some other time we see make errors, and we need to install other packages in order to let the make go through. This is particularly a problem for compiling low-level systems, such as a Linux kernel or Xen hypervisor.
I have one experience with Xen 3.4. Maybe it has been documented in some corner documents, but it depends on udev-125 to work properly. The weird thing is it functions well most of the time when udev version is 160+, it only breaks in certain cases! It took me a few MONTHS to find out it was because of the wrong udev version!
To make developers' life easier, when a source code is made successfully in one machine, is there some tools to record the list of packages and versions of that machine? Such a 'snapshot' should be shipped with the source code as well, so that when someone meets the make error they at least have a successful 'snapshot' for reference.
Is there such a tool already?
If your software depends on a specific version of a dependency, you should write a check for your configure script/cmakefile/etc. that tests the version of the dependency and bails out if the wrong version was found.
Comparing the output of config.log (a file created by a configure script) can also help diagnose problems like you encountered.
At work I'm using Perl 5.8.0 on Windows.
When I first put Perl on, I went to CPAN, downloaded all the sources, made a few changes (in the .MAK file(?) to support threads, or things like that), and did nmake / nmake test / nmake install. Then, bit by bit, I've downloaded individual modules from CPAN and done the nmake dance.
So, I'd like to upgrade to a more recent version, but the new one must not break any existing scripts. Notably, a bunch of "use" modules that I've installed must be installed in the new version.
What's the most reliable (and easiest) way to update my current version, ensuring that everything I've done with the nmake dance will still be there after updating?
As others noted, start by installing the new perl in a separate place. I have several perls installed, each completely separate from all of the others.
To do that, you'll have to configure and compile the sources yourself. When you run configure, you'll get a chance to specify the installer. I gave detailed instructions for this in an "Compiling My Own Perl" in the Spring 2008 issue of The Perl Review. There's also an Item in Effective Perl Programming that shows you how to do it.
Now, go back to your original distribution and run cpan -a to create an autobundle file. This is a Pod document that lists all of the extra stuff you've installed, and CPAN.pm understands how to use that to reinstall everything.
To install things in the new perl, use that perl's path to start CPAN.pm and install the autobundle file you created. CPAN.pm will get the right installation paths from that perl's configuration.
Watch the output to make sure things go well. This process won't install the same versions of the modules, but the latest versions.
As for Strawberry Perl, there's a "portable" version you can install somewhere besides the default location. That way you could have the new perl on removable media. You can test it anywhere you like without disturbing the local installation. I don't think that's quite ready for general use though. The Berrybrew tool might help you manage that.
Good luck, :)
I would seriously consider looking at using Strawberry Perl.
You can install a second version of Perl in a different location. You'll have to re-install any non-core modules into the new version. In general, different versions of Perl are not binary compatible, which could be an issue if you have any program-specific libraries that utilize XS components. Pure Perl modules shouldn't be affected.
If you stay within the 5.8 track, all installed modules that contain XS (binary) extensions will continue to work, as binary compatibility is guaranteed within the same 5.8 series. If you moved to 5.10 then you would have to recompile any modules that contain XS components.
All you need to do is ensure that the new build lists the previous include directories in its #INC array (which is used to look for modules).
By the sounds of it, I think you're on Windows, in which case the current #INC paths can be viewed with
perl -le "print for #INC"
Make sure you target your new Perl version in another directory. It will happily coexist
with the previous version, and this will allow you to choose which Perl installation gets used; it's just a question of getting your PATH order sorted out. As soon as a Perl interpreter is started up, it knows where to look for the rest of its modules.
Strawberry Perl is probably the nicest distribution on Windows these days for rolling your own.
I think the answer to this involves virtualisation of some kind:
Set up an exact copy of your current live machine. Upgrade Perl, using the same directory locations and structures as you're using at the moment.
Go through your scripts testing them on the new image.
Once you're happy, flip the switch.
The thinking behind this is that there's probably all sorts of subtle dependencies and assumptions you haven't thought of. While unlikely, the latest version of a particular module (possibly even a core module, although that's even more unlikely) might have a subtle difference compared to the one you were using. Unless you've exhaustively gone through your entire codebase, there's quite possibly a particular module that's required only under certain circumstances.
You can try and spot this by building a list of all your scripts - a list that you should have anyway, by dint of all your code being under version control (you are using version control, e.g. Subversion, yes?) - and iterating through it, running perl -c on each script. e.g. this script. That sort of automated test is invaluable: you can set it running, go away for a coffee or whatever, and come back to check whether everything worked. The first few times you'll probably find an obscure module that you'd forgotten about, which is fine: the whole point of automating this is so that you don't have to do the drudge-work of checking every single script.
When I did it I installed the newer one into a separate directory. There's a bit of added confusion running two versions, but it definitely helps make sure everything's working first, and provides a quick way of switching back to the old one in a pinch. I also set up Apache to run two separate services, so I could monkey around with the newer Perl in one service without touching the production one on the old Perl.
It's probably a lot wiser, in hindsight, to install on a separate computer, and do your testing there. Record every configuration change you need to make.
I am not sure about building it yourself—I always just used prepackaged binaries for Windows.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Do you have a list of changes you made to the 5.8 makefile? Or is the question how to obtain such a list? Are you also asking how to find out which packages above the base install you've obtained from CPAN? Are you also asking how to test that your custom changes won't break those packages if you get them from CPAN again?
Why don't you use ActivePerl and its "ppm" tool to (re)install modules?