Amiga Inc. Faq-O-Matic: Version 1.03 of SDK?

Home
Support
Get the SDK

	Amiga Inc. Faq-O-Matic : Amiga SDK FAQ : Version 1.03 of SDK?
	I have a problem noone seems to mention. My version of the SDK seems to be 1.03. I have these files on the CD: amiga-sdk-1.0-3.i386.dat amiga-sdk-doc-1.0-3.i386.dat amiga-sdk-gpl-utils-1.0-3.i386.dat My system is a Debian Potato with XFree 4.01. When i run Setup everything is fine until I come to the "installing documentation" progress bar, which disappears after about a fifth of a second, followed by a requester "installation complete". I can't find any Amiga-files on my harddisk after that. It was a good move to remove the rpm-files, if it was meant that the installation would work on every distribution (which in my opinion is a must), but if it doesn't work for anything else, it was just stupid. Help me! I don't want to install redhat! (I don't have it either) gurgel
	The RPMs weren't removed -- they were encrypted. Those files you see ARE RPMs and you must be running an RPM-based flavor of Linux. Red Hat is not the only such OS, and I hear you can install the RPM subsystem onto Debian along with a lot of dummy packages to indicate already-installed capabilities. jrush
	It isn't version 1.03. It's version 1.0-3, which means "version 1.0, packaging release 3". rudi
	I'm attempting to install the SDK on a RedHat 6.2 system and am encountering the same problems as described above. I.e. I get to the point where the data is supposed to be installed to the machine and the progess bar does not update and the install finishes in ~5 seconds and claims success but no files have been written to the disk. I have attempted both a build of ncurses 4.2 in case the installer was using such (it isn't, of course, but I knew I'd have to deal with it anyway so it couldn't hurt to do it now) as well as run the installer under strace to see if I could parse what was going on behind the scenes that causes the install to silently "succeed" (i.e. fail). :) Any suggestions for someone who has significant investment in developing on a 6.2 system where downgrading is not an option? joe
	Joe, please see http://www.amiga.com/cgi-bin/fom.cgi?file=18&step=mainMenu Also see http://www.amiga.com/cgi-bin/fom.cgi?file=19&step=mainMenu The solutions presented there, for RH6.2, have worked for everyone who has had a problem. Ray Akey / Amiga Developer Support ray
	Hi Ray, Thanks for the rapid response, but I'm afriad that the problem is not related to ncurses nor the "current directory" issue. To attempt to figure out what is going wrong I've performed another series of trials and determined the problem. I've made sure that (a) all volumes have sufficient room for a full unencrypted copy of the data files in case they get copied multiple times temporarily (like some installers I won't mention in the MSFT domain - no comment on what I think of that methodology), (b) my shell environment isn't having an adverse impact on the run (i.e. no extra shell variables, aliases, etc. that might override/conflict which those that the installer expects), I have no local (i.e. custom/personal dev) rpms that might conflict/override with those that are being installed. None of the above helped, so then I did a ptrace of the install, filtering out all the useless seek() and read()s from the 6.5MB tracefile. I found that the installer is making a temporary copy of the rpms, so I just wrote a little script to halt the installer when the rpms were stable and correct (i.e. full, tested writes) and grabbed an unencrypted copy. Then I was able to run the rpm install by hand to determine what the problem is. So, the answer is this: the rpm dependencies that are failing are the X libraries. This is because I'm running XFree86 4.01 that I built myself, thus no X rpms exist on my system. A simple --force --nodeps did the trick for me, but the real problem here is that the setup/installer is getting this error message back from the rpm subprocess (via STDERR) and not checking it, nor its shell return code. Error checking is always a Good Thing. :) Five minutes later I'm running an eterm and the boing demo. Looks great folks! Thanks. Joe Kiniry joe
	[Append to This Answer]

Previous:	Is there a bug in GCC and thus VPCC regarding class initialization?
Next:	Amiga Text Editors

This document is: http://www.amiga.com/cgi-bin/fom.cgi?file=113

	[Search]	[Appearance]
This is a Faq-O-Matic 2.710.

This FAQ administered by ray@amiga.com

© 1996-2000 Amiga, Inc.