Re: [Gretl-users] Installing version 1.7.9 from source code
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Gordon Hughes wrote:
Is there a difference between the gzip source files for 1.7.9 on
Sourceforge and the Ricardo ftp server?
No, they are identical.
waverley:~/tmp$ wget \
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/pub/gretl/gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 6220758 (5.9M) [application/x-bzip2]
Saving to: `gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2'
waverley:~/tmp$ md5sum gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
b7ee47adede4609d9d2d5e202ddde7e7 gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
waverley:~/tmp rm gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
waverley:~/tmp$ wget \
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gretl/gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Length: 6220758 (5.9M) [application/x-bzip2]
Saving to: `gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2'
waverley:~/tmp$ md5sum gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
b7ee47adede4609d9d2d5e202ddde7e7 gretl-1.7.9.tar.bz2
For good measure I unzipped the two archives and ran "diff" on the
respective configure scripts, which confirmed that they are
exactly the same.
Finally, for some strange reason my attempts to install the
generic rpm file on OpenSuse fail because the package manager
says that it cannot find libblas.so.0 and liblapack.so.0, even
though appropriate versions of libblas and liblapack are
installed with symbolic links created for these two library
names. Obviously there is some problem in resolving library
names.
Yes. Neither libblas.so.0 nor liblapack.so.0 is an "official"
dependency so far as the gretl rpms are concerned:
For the RHEL version:
waverley:~/tmp$ rpm -qpR gretl-1.7.9-1RHEL.i586.rpm | grep lapack
liblapack.so.3
waverley:~/tmp$ rpm -qpR gretl-1.7.9-1RHEL.i586.rpm | grep blas
libblas.so.3
And for the modern version:
waverley:~/tmp$ rpm -qpR gretl-1.7.9-1gtk2.i586.rpm | grep lapack
liblapack.so
waverley:~/tmp$ rpm -qpR gretl-1.7.9-1gtk2.i586.rpm | grep blas
libblas.so
It looks as if the library symlinks on your system may be wrong.
Allin.