[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20031209: incorrect binary?

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 20031209: incorrect binary?
  • Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:59:26 -0700
>From: rupert <address@hidden>
>Organization: The University of Manchester
>Keywords: 200312091524.hB9FOHp2001740 netCDF binary IRIX64

Rupert,

>>>Your irix64_6.5-mips binary bundle appears to be 32 bit rather
>>>than 64 bit. Building from source as per your instructions works
>>>perfectly.
>> 
>> 
>> Which package are you talking about (we support a number of packages
>> with binary distributions)?
>
>I was talking about netcdf and in particular, the irix64_6.5-mips
>link on http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/packages/netcdf/binaries.html.

OK.  I don't believe that the binary was ever supposed to be a 64-bit
version.  The naming convention for our FTP directories for binary
distributions (and, correspondingly the links in the web pages) is
taken from the output of 'uname'.  It is unfortunate that the name of
the OS IRIX64 tends to convey the impression that binaries are 64-bit
when using this naming scheme.

>Sorry about being too vague before

No worries.

>Regards
>-- Rupert
>Centre for Novel Computing,      address@hidden
>Department of Computer Science,  http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/cnc
>The University of Manchester     +44 (0)161 275 6144

Cheers,

Tom