Suhaib- The ImageMagick I downloaded from their site put the following shared objects in /usr/local/lib:
0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Jun 24 12:33 libMagick.so -> libMagick.so.5.0.21 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Jun 24 12:33 libMagick.so.5 -> libMagick.so.5.0.21 1482 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1510080 Jun 16 17:14 libMagick.a 1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1017 Jun 16 17:14 libMagick.la 1047 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1065056 Jun 16 17:14 libMagick.so.5.0.21 Hopefully, you can determine from this what version of ImageMagick this corresponds to. -S. -------------------------------------------------------- "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote: > Good to know that your problem is fixed. I will still go ahead > and compile a OpenDX 4.1.1 for GCC 2.96. The newer release of > GCC RPMS from RedHat update sites broke many applications. > I expect to hear a lot of complaints abouts OpenDX 4.1.0 breaking > with newer GCC RPMS. > > The Image Magick you downloaded from www.imagemagick.org is 5.2?? > and OpenDX 4.1.0 needs IM 5.1 RPMS. IM 5.2 and 5.1 are very different. > > Suhaib > > Steve Ettorre wrote: > > > > To all: > > > > I got my dynamic linker problem fixed. I removed the ImageMagick rpm > > package that > > was installed on my machine. I then downloaded and installed the gzipped > > tar file > > from the ImageMagick web site. As soon as I did this, dx ran and I was able > > to > > view sample data files. > > > > Thanks for all your help and patience. > > > > -S. > > > > P.S. I have one additional question - I want to use dx to view results from > > a CFD > > code which currently outputs fieldview files. Does anyone know of a > > converter > > that might be available to translate fieldview files to a format that dx > > will > > accept? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Steve Ettorre wrote: > > > > > Suhaib- > > > > > > Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, when I tried to implement it here is > > > what > > > happened: > > > > > > /usr/local/dx/bin_linux > > > dad.27% ldd * > > > builder: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > dxexec: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > dxui: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > prompter: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > startupui: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > tutor: > > > BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions: > > > Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed! > > > > > > Not very promising - is it? > > > > > > -S. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" wrote: > > > > > > > The bst way to find the names of dynamic libraries... cd to dx/bin_linux > > > > and type: > > > > > > > > ldd * > > > > > > > > This should output the names of all the libraries dynamically linked to > > > > executables. You can check if you have the same dynamic libraries on > > > > your > > > > system, > > > > if not setup symbolic links. Unfortunately, RedHat uses weird names for > > > > libstdc++.so and change them to weird names each time they release a > > > > new rpm > > > > of libstdc++. I do not have a valid explaination why RedHat developers > > > > love to rename libstdc++ to something soooooooooo weird which causes > > > > applications compiled on one version of RedHat to break on other version > > > > of RedHat. It is a nightmare for developers. It would be a whole lot > > > > easier, if they stick to standard libstdc++.so. > > > > > > > > I am RedHat Beta team for RedHat upcoming > > > > release of RH 7.0. I will raise this question on their beta-testers > > > > site. > > > > I hope they listen and stop susing the weird libstdc++ blah blah numbers > > > > from one RPM release to another. > > > > > > > > Suhaib > > > > > > > > > Hi- > > > > > > > > > > Following the suggestion from Tom Gardiner, I have examined the soft > > > > > links for libstdc in /usr/lib. Here is what is currently setup: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 May 22 19:07 > > > > > libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 -> libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so > > > > > 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 31 May 22 19:07 > > > > > libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so > > > > > > > > > > Note, I have the link libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> > > > > > libstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so. This differs from what Tom identified > > > > > (i.e., libstdc++-libc6.1-2.so.3 -> libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so). > > > > > > > > > > Also note, I am running a very recent snapshot of the gcc suite of > > > > > compilers. The rpm packages for the dynamic libraries > > > > > libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.so and ibstdc++-3-libc6.1-2-2.10.0.so are > > > > > libstdc++-compat-2.95.3-0.20000323 and libstdc++-2.95.3-0.20000323, > > > > > respectively. Does this seem to be ok? > > > > > > > > > > One last thing, I am using the rpm package for opendx-4.1.0-1. I have > > > > > found README files in /usr/local/dx/doc but have not been able to > > > > > locate > > > > > any specific instructions dealing with setting links to libstdc. If > > > > > anyone could point towards where I can find this information, I would > > > > > appreciate it. > > > > > > > > > > TIA, > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Steve Ettorre > > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > "...thinking is not consciousness - > > > > > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Steve Ettorre > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > "...thinking is not consciousness - > > > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > > Steve Ettorre > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------- > > "...thinking is not consciousness - > > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > > ------------------------------------------- -- Steve Ettorre e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- "...thinking is not consciousness - it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh -------------------------------------------
