Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A thread for issues during Scam installation.
#1
In an ideal world, no other students will have an issue. Let us all hope I am the only idiot here, but just in case I am not, here is the first tip we can add to this thread, concerning hick-ups during the Scam install. 

If you are using a Linux system like me (I am using an Ubuntu dual boot) and you are following the very simple, straight-forward step-by-step instructions supplied on beastie HERE:
  
Make sure you download the proper "BIT" (32-bit, 64-bit) and obviously, make sure you choose the proper OS download location. 

In my case, I originally followed the provided directions 'to the T', and diligently, but foolishly, downloaded the version of Scam for Linux 32-bit systems which is given in the raw instructions at step 2 and 3. 

I am not, however, using a 32-bit system, and therefore upon attempting to run scam from my terminal, I experienced a: "No such file or directory" error.

I proceeded to act very calmly and logically and pulled out a chunk of my hair as I calmly and logically raged from directory to directory learning all sorts of interesting tid-bits of knowledge about "Linux PATH variables" and just how many different "/bin" directories actually exist on a given installation of Linux.

Finally, I came across a forum post which just so happened to mention the very non-technical and obvious warning: "make sure you are using the proper software version for your system, as most 64-bit installations will not run 32-bit programs without some more technical work-arounds".

I then returned to the installation instructions, noted once more the various versions CLEARLY listed above the step-by-step, replaced the wget location with the proper 64-bit address, and what do you know... it works like a charm. 

So, just to summarize: do not be like Ben, for Ben is not to be been like. Read the instructions carefully, and follow them closely... but not TOO closely, and substitute the proper version of Scam into the wget and tar command lines.
Everything looks sarcastic on the internet. 
Reply
#2
Ok, I ben-proofed the page, using the magic of the bash shell. Mr. Aaron, would you mind deleting your scam directory and reinstalling scam using the new instructions to test them out?

Refresh the Scam homepage, first.
Reply
#3
(08-19-2017, 10:05 PM)lusth Wrote: Ok, I ben-proofed the page, using the magic of the bash shell. Mr. Aaron, would you mind deleting your scam directory and reinstalling scam using the new instructions to test them out?

Refresh the Scam homepage, first.

MuAHAHA! Trojan thought they could ben-proof their product too, and yet I am my father's son!

First thing's first: when the wget command is completed manually substituting the proper file name, the download works, and my try.scm file runs as expected. However:

It seems there is still a slight issue at least for me...

  When I use: dpkg --print-architecture, I get the amd64 we expect. Of this, I am sure. 

  If I: export arch='dpkg --print-architecture', then echo the variable arch I see dpkg --print-architecture.
  When I: wget beastie.cs.ua.edu/scam/scam-2.4-$arch.tgz 
      I get an error wget: unrecognized option '--print-architecture.tgz'

All that said, I DID get this strategy to work for me by changing the variable assignment line to:
export arch="$(dpkg --print-architecture)"
echo $arch now returns 'amd64' and the subsequent wget command eats this right up.

Piano! Harpsichord! Saxophone!
Everything looks sarcastic on the internet. 
Reply
#4
One of the many, many, many advantages of a command-line interface is that you can copy commands from a website and paste them into your shell. Contrast this with a GUI interface, where the web page has to show you pictures and tell you where to click.

It appears you typed in a command the long way and substituted single quotes for backticks when setting the arch variable:
Code:
export arch=`dpkg --print-architecture`

I am torn between leaving the instructions as is, because backticks are SO useful and you should get comfortable using them. Your way is cleaner though...
Reply
#5
You are absolutely right. I used single quotes. 

I am man enough to admit that, despite using the ~ frequently, I have - honest to god - NEVER even realized that there was such a thing as a backtick. After reading your last reply I actually googled backtick and searched my keyboard for another "apostrophe thingy". 

Perhaps I should start a CS blog called "ben-proofing your code, ben-proofing your life" and just give daily examples of ways you can be less oblivious. But I bet the target audience would... never notice it! HA! ... ha... sigh... *cry
Everything looks sarcastic on the internet. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)