Linux Users

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

64 bit software?

Duh. Running updateNIDrivers did fix it!

So... to summarize:

1) I have NIKAL/ni4882/visa working with 32 bit Python on F10-x86_64!

2) The visa INSTALL script should use "rpm -Uvh foo; rpm -Uvh bar; rpm -Uvh hah" instead of "rpm -Uvh foo bar hah".

Next up: LabView.

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 21 of 31
(1,316 Views)

To make labview work, I had to:

cd /usr/lib; ln -s /usr/local/lib/LabVIEW-8.2/patchlib/libGL.so.1

and now everything seems to work.

Thanks for the support!

- Mike
0 Kudos
Message 22 of 31
(1,316 Views)

Really?  That seems strange, because our installers have done the "rpm -Uvh foo bar hah" thing for a long time.  I don't have time to look at the code right now, but I vaguely remember that we check if a component is already installed and I'm guessing we are supposed to strip it from the list if we find a newer or equal version already installed.  I'm guessing that logic may be what is broken.

FYI we install all rpms in one command because it greatly simplifies the dependency resolution between the rpms.  That is mainly why  I'm a little surprised rpm isn't smart enough to just drop some of the rpms if newer versions are already installed.

Use NI products on Linux? Come join the NI Linux Users Community
0 Kudos
Message 23 of 31
(1,316 Views)

Oh, I forgot about the dependency resolution. Yes, everything should be in one rpm command.

Perhaps the i386/x86_64 split confused the already-installed-checker.

Maybe you should use yum instead, if installed. It doesn't choke on missing rpms.

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 24 of 31
(1,316 Views)

What behavior did you see before you made that symlink?

FYI, the better way to do that is to put that file in /usr/local/natinst/LabVIEW-8.6/patchlib (like you did for 8.2). That prevents it from interfering with other applications, or having other installers interfer with LabVIEW.

0 Kudos
Message 25 of 31
(1,316 Views)

Adam,

I don't think the libraries are working the way you expect:

[root@xena ~]# cd /usr/local/lib/LabVIEW-8.6/patchlib/

[root@xena patchlib]# cp /usr/local/lib/LabVIEW-8.2/patchlib/libGL* .
[root@xena patchlib]# ll
total 528
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 264864 2008-12-11 08:07 libGL.so.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 264864 2008-12-11 08:07 libGL.so.1.2
[root@xena patchlib]# labview
labview: error while loading shared libraries: libGL.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
[root@xena patchlib]# ln -s /usr/local/lib/LabVIEW-8.2/patchlib/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib
[root@xena patchlib]# labview

... runs OK ...

Anyway, running:

yum install mesa-libGL.{i386,x86_64}

installs the necessary libraries without any of the above wonkiness.

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 26 of 31
(1,316 Views)

Here is a suspicious bit from the visa installer, where it is not detecting the installed visa rpm:

+ getRpmInfo nivisa
++ /bin/rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}:%{RELEASE}:%{INSTALLPREFIX}' nivisa
+ strRpmInfo=
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
++ echo ''
++ sed -e 's/^\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\)$/\1/'
+ strRpmVersion=
++ echo ''
++ sed -e 's/^\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\)$/\2/'
+ strRpmRelease=
++ echo ''
++ sed -e 's/^\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\):\([^:]*\)$/\3/'
+ strRpmInstallPrefix=
+ return 0
+ '[' -n '' ']'
+ bNonRpmInstallDetected=0
+ '[' 1 -eq 0 ']'
+ '[' 0 -eq 0 ']'
+ '[' 1 -eq 1 ']'
+ '[' 0 -eq 0 ']'
+ inputynq 'Do you wish to install NI-VISA Runtime 4.4.0? [Ynq] ' Y 0

The "INSTALLPREFIX" bit seems to fail:

[root@xena visa44]# /bin/rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}:%{RELEASE}:%{INSTALLPREFIX}' nivisa

error: incorrect format: unknown tag

[root@xena visa44]# /bin/rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}:%{RELEASE}'

nivisa4.4.0:f0

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 27 of 31
(1,316 Views)

These are the valid rpm prefix tags:

[root@xena ~]# rpm --querytags | grep -i prefix
INSTPREFIXES
PREFIXES

"INSTALLPREFIX" is not one of them.

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 28 of 31
(1,316 Views)

The install script seems to run if you change INSTALLPREFIX to INSTPREFIXES.

- Mike

0 Kudos
Message 29 of 31
(1,316 Views)

Thanks for debugging this!  My Fedora 9 machine still has INSTALLPREFIX so this must be a change in Fedora 10.  The good news is that historically NI-VISA has had their own custom INSTALL script but NI-VISA 4.5 will use the same tools that create the NI-KAL, and NI-488.2 install script which does not have this problem.

Use NI products on Linux? Come join the NI Linux Users Community
0 Kudos
Message 30 of 31
(1,316 Views)