I am trying to install critlib on my machine (http://equi4.com/critlib/), so that I can create zip files dynamically in Tcl.
The issue is that I have no idea how to install Tcl packages. Is there a certain place you put the folders? Is there a command like yum I can use?
I've skimmed the various Tcl beginners guides and read the sections about packages, but every source always seems to be assuming knowledge I lack.
Yes, there are some directories. To list them, execute tclsh and enter
join $auto_path \n
In each of that directory and its subdir (but not the sub-sub-dir) tcl looks for a file called pkgIndex.tcl.
So if you got an archive, extract it, look where the pkgIndex.tcl is, and copy the directory where this file is in to one of the paths $auto_path. The problem is only to select the appropiate path from the output of step 1.
If you are not sure what the appropiate directory is, I suggest editing the output from the first step into your question.
If you are using vscode and made virtual environment then you can do it as follows
"pipenv install tcl"
Related
I’m not root for the linux server,
so I choose to install softwares in my $HOME/local/bin, I already added the $HOME/local/bin directory to the PATH environment variable, wrote in my .bashrc.
Some softwares install this way like:
tar xvzf ncurses-5.9.tar.gz
cd ncurses-5.9
./configure --prefix=$HOME/local
make
make install
cd ..
So it will directly install in my $HOME/local/bin.
But for some softwares, after download like sbt-1.2.1.zip (based on java), and decompression, shows just a file fold sbt, it contains three foldsbin conf lib, and in its bin, contains one executable file named sbt and java9-rt-export.jar sbt-launch-lib.bash sbt-launch.jar sbt.bat.
Here I wonder:
I should just soft link this executable sbt file path under my $HOME/local/bin, then source my .bashrc?
Or, after decompression, add one line in my .bashrc export PATH="downloadpath/sbt/bin:$PATH"?
Since just one executable downloadpath/sbt/bin, so I'm not sure it is right to add whole bin fold path, if software's bin fold contains executable files (one or many), I think this situation is more convenient for just add it's bin in .bashrc, but even so, I'm not sure its right?
I'm not familiar with installation software, now I usually know way
but not why. Here I shows two ways (more ways not be showed here) to
install, executable file always be written in bin or src? But some
softwares no bin just src but no executable files in it...
Slurm also can use modules to install software, conda also other way, but I want to
confirm these traditional ways I mentioned (that two) still can be
used on slurm or conda?
However, any suggestion even one aspect's reminding will be grateful!
For precompiled software, or, in general, software that does not offer configure scripts or (C)make files, it is ofter better to leave them in their target directory and adapt the *PATH (PATH to binaries, but also LD_LIBRARY_PATH, LIBRARY_PATH to libraries and CPATH to include files and MANPATH to the man page) environment variables.
The reason is that the software might be configured to read files with hardcoded paths, relative to the position of the executable, such as libraries, etc.
In your case, you might also need to setup the CLASSPATH env variable to the directory with the jar files.
To ease software installation, you can use tools such as easybuild that can help, and even create user modules just like the system module installed by the system administrators.
There is something wrong in my opinion with your setup. If you don`t have root account on your server, is not better to test what you have to test, in a more safe environment - for example a vm/container on your developement machine ?
However, in your situation maybe it can be better to start sbt by using a separate bash script than modifying your .bashrc
I installed tcl to learn it, however, I installed all the files in the wrong location. I am trying to uninstall it, But the uninstall file does not work. I am trying to carry out the instructions form their website:
To uninstall ActiveTcl, run the "uninstall.tcl" script that is located in the directory where you extracted the ActiveTcl archive. Note that you must use the "wish" in the distribution you wish to uninstall. For example:
% /path/Tcl/bin/wish /path/Tcl/lib/ppm/log/ActiveTcl/uninstall_ActiveTcl.tcl
stored, by default, in the directory /lib/ppm/log/ActiveTcl. You must use the wish interpreter from the distribution you wish to uninstall. Ensure that you do not run the uninstall script from a directory that will be removed during the uninstallation.
For example:
% /path/Tcl/bin/wish /path/Tcl/lib/ppm/log/ActiveTcl/uninstall_ActiveTcl.tcl
Note: if you are uninstalling both ActiveTcl and Tcl Dev Kit, uninstall Tcl Dev Kit before uninstalling ActiveTcl.
There is no uninstall_ActiveTcl.tcl. I do see an "uninstall" file but it does not have an extension, and I do not know how to run it.
Any help is appreciated
Thank you
Try editing the file to a uninstall.tcl file and see if that works. Take a back-up first though. Because we might need that file later
I re-installed it in a new location, compared the files that were installed between the old and the new location and deleted the file sin the old location. Unfortunately I could not delete many of the hidden files, as I did not know if they were there originally or if they belonged to Tcl. I am really surprised and disappointed there is no easy way to uninstall tcl properly.
I strongly suspect that you should uninstall ActiveTcl as follows:
Open a command prompt
Change directory to where you found the install file - e.g.
$ cd path_to_Tcl_installation/bin
Run the file
$ ./uninstall
On linux systems, you don't need any particular file extension in order to be able to run a file.
I don't know CentOS but a little googling led me to a forum thread that describes how to open a command prompt.
Good luck
I have recently installed a webframework play (http://www.playframework.com/) and want to have the play executable in the system path ie $PATH. But ubuntu already defines a command called play. How do I overwrite the system defined command with my framework binary path so that command play on commandline calls my framework rather than the old application.
Installation: I downloaded zipped file of the framework and upzipped in one of my personal folder which contains the docs and the executable.
Never alter the contents of installed packages. Such changes can provoke hard to find problems in the system and anyway, they will most likely be overwritten again in subsequent updates. There are other alternatives:
obviously you can chose another name for your executable
place the executable in another part of your $PATH if its a "personal installation", typically ~/bin is used for such approach. Remember that the order of entries in the $PATH variable is important, first come first serve.
use the traditional /usr/local/bin location for locally added "wild" installations, this way there is some form of clean separation between clean packages and wild installed files inside the system
store your software in some other location and prepend that to your personal or system wide $PATH variable
store your executable under another name and create an alias (see man alias for an explanation) for it which allows to call it by some name that "hides" the original command this way. For this the executable can be addressed with an absolute path, so it dies not have to be found inside the $PATH variable.
In my personal opinion options 2. and 5. and the best if it comes to "personal installations".
If you are sure you'll never use the original play command, you could just remove the binary. But in general, this isn't a good idea, since some system component you don't think of might need it, and the next update will probably restore it.
The best thing to do is to prepend the directory of your play command to the PATH, for example, using PATH=/opt/framework/bin:$PATH in your .profile (assuming your play command installs to /opt/framework/bin/play), or the script that starts your web server, or wherever you need your play command.
Remember that does not make your play command global. A common mistake is to add the path in their .profile file, then call the program from crontab - crontab scripts will not execute .profile or .bashrc.
I have a debian package that I built that contains a tar ball of the files, a control file, and a postinst file. Its built using dpkg-deb and it installs properly using dpkg.
The modification I would like to make is to have the installation directory of the files be determined at runtime based on an environment variable that will be set when dpkg -i is run on the deb file. I echo out the environment variable in the postinst script and I can see that its set properly.
My questions:
1) Is it possible to dynamically determine the installation directory at runtime?
2) If its possible how would I go about this? I have read about the rules file and the mypackage.install files but I don't know if either of these would allow me to accomplish this.
I could hack it by copying the files to the target location in the posinst script but I would prefer to do it the right way if possible.
Thanks in advance!
So this is what I found out about this problem over the past couple of weeks.
With prepackaged binaries you can't build a debian package with a destination directory dynamicall determined at runtime. I believe that this might be possible if installing a package that is built from source where you can set the install directory using configure. But in this case since these are embedded Ubuntu machines they don't have make so I didn't pursue such an option. I did work out a non traditional method (hack) for installing that did work. Since debian packages simply contain a tar ball relative to / simply build your package relative to a directory under /tmp. In the postinst script you can then determine where to copy the files from the archive into a permanent location.
I expected that after rebooting and the automatic deletion of the subdirectory under /tmp that dpkg might not know that the file package existed. This wasn't a problem. When I ran 'dpkg -l myapp' it showed as still installed. Updating the package using dpkg/apt-get also worked without a hitch.
What I did find is that if you attempted to remove the package using 'dpkg -r myapp' that dpkg would try and remove /tmp which wasn't good. However /tmp isn't easily removed so it never succeeded. Plus in our situation we never remove packages but instead simply upgrade them.
I eventually had to abandon the universal package due to code differences in the sources resulting in having to recompile per platform but I would have left it this way and it did work.
I tried using --instdir to change the install directory of the package and it does relocate the files but dpkg fails since the dpkg file can't be found relative to the new instdir. Using --instdir is sort of like a chroot. I also tried --admindir and --root in various combinations to see if I could use the dpkg system relative to / but install relocate the files but they didn't work. I guess rpm has a relocate option that works but not Ubuntu.
You can also write a script that runs dpkg-deb with a different environment for 6 times, generating 6 different packages. When you make a modification, you simply have to run your script, and all 6 packages gets generated and you can install them on your machines avoiding postinst hacking!
Why not install to a standard location, and simply use a postinst script to create symbolic links to the desired location? This is much cleaner, and shouldn't break anything in dpk -I.
I made a perl script that creates a deb binary package from scratch.
I created the data, control, etc.
But when I run dpkg -i on my deb package it complains that it is unable to files from data.
Example:
unable to create '.dpkg-new'(while processing ''): No such file or directory.
I have downloaded some .deb packages to look at and they do not use the preinst script to create the directory structure.
I am thinking I am doing something wrong, I consider having to create my own directories in preinst but it does not seem right... perhaps I am missing something?
Do I have to create directories where my files from data will be copied in the preinst sh, or should dpkg do it and I am doing something wrong?
I had the same problem in a Ruby script I wrote.
I was generating a list of files to pass to tar when building the data.tar.gz archive. When I ungzip and untared the archive manually it would deflate fine, but dpkg would fail.
It turns out that the list of files must also include each directory to create as well.
Note that when I created data.tar.gz I built it with nearly the same options as dpkg-deb/build.c does in the dpkg-1.15.8.11 source.
execlp(TAR, "tar", "-cf", "-", "--format=gnu", "--null", "-T", "-", "--no-recursion", NULL);
Instead I used
IO.popen("gnutar -czf - --format=gnu -T - --no-recursion", "r+")
In addition to what #Arrowmaster said, check the http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ for some detailed explanation of the files. After you build the package itself, you can check it with lintian tool to see if there is anything obvious you might have missed.
If any one looks for a solution to the problem:
"Build a deb package from an rpm spec file."
Look here http://www.deepnet.cx/debbuild/
I have made my own perl build script much simple then the mentioned one so I can easily maintain it.
Some useful knowledge gained in the process:
0. the deb is an ar archive that contains 3 files, the order of the files is important.
1. the scripts from control.tar.gz must be made executable.
2. it is good to have a preinstall script to make directories if dirs do not exist.
3. sometimes dpkg decides to unzip your zips (this happened if the zip was the only file in the data.tar.gz) so check for that in an postinstall script.
4. when you tar.gz some files be sure to chmod to the dir that contains the directory structure for your tar.
You should not attempt to manually create a .deb binary package by hand. The Debian New Maintainers' Guide covers how to get started creating a Debian package using the correct tools.
Your hand created package may look correct to you but because it is not installing it is obviously flawed in either a minor way that you have not noticed or in a more serious way that is not visible to you (for example most people don't realize a .deb is actually an ar archive).
There are lots of reasons for this. You really need to run:
dpkg -i -D1110 mydeb.deb
And post the result to have any hope of someone being able to solve the problem.