Armory 0.96 third testing builds

[goatpig]

Noted, will look into it.

[SimonBelmond]

Noted, will look into it.

Thx, let me know when you find something.

[Carlton Banks]

Build fails with current testing (a4e681c), latest Debian 8.7 based Whonix

Code:

TransactionBatch.cpp: In member function 'void TransactionBatch::unserialize_recipients(const std::vector<std::basic_string<char> >&, std::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int>&)':
TransactionBatch.cpp:195:13: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_stringstream<char>& std::basic_stringstream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_stringstream<char>&)'
          ss = stringstream(valStr_ss);
             ^
In file included from log.h:58:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:51,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/sstream:502:11: note: 'std::basic_stringstream<char>& std::basic_stringstream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_stringstream<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_stringstream : public basic_iostream<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
/usr/include/c++/4.9/sstream:502:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_iostream<char>& std::basic_iostream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_iostream<char>&)'
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:40:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/istream:795:11: note: 'std::basic_iostream<char>& std::basic_iostream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_iostream<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_iostream
           ^
/usr/include/c++/4.9/istream:795:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_istream<char>& std::basic_istream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_istream<char>&)'
/usr/include/c++/4.9/istream:58:11: note: 'std::basic_istream<char>& std::basic_istream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_istream<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_istream : virtual public basic_ios<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
/usr/include/c++/4.9/istream:58:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_ios<char>& std::basic_ios<char>::operator=(const std::basic_ios<char>&)'
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ios:44:0,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:38,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:39,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/basic_ios.h:66:11: note: 'std::basic_ios<char>& std::basic_ios<char>::operator=(const std::basic_ios<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_ios : public ios_base
           ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ios:42:0,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:38,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:39,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/ios_base.h:789:5: error: 'std::ios_base& std::ios_base::operator=(const std::ios_base&)' is private
     operator=(const ios_base&);
     ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ios:44:0,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:38,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:39,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/basic_ios.h:66:11: error: within this context
     class basic_ios : public ios_base
           ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:40:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/istream:795:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_ostream<char>& std::basic_ostream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_ostream<char>&)'
     class basic_iostream
           ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:39:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:58:11: note: 'std::basic_ostream<char>& std::basic_ostream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_ostream<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_ostream : virtual public basic_ios<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
/usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:58:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_ios<char>& std::basic_ios<char>::operator=(const std::basic_ios<char>&)'
In file included from log.h:58:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:51,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/sstream:502:11: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_stringbuf<char>& std::basic_stringbuf<char>::operator=(const std::basic_stringbuf<char>&)'
     class basic_stringstream : public basic_iostream<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
/usr/include/c++/4.9/sstream:64:11: note: 'std::basic_stringbuf<char>& std::basic_stringbuf<char>::operator=(const std::basic_stringbuf<char>&)' is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
     class basic_stringbuf : public basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ios:43:0,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/ostream:38,
                 from /usr/include/c++/4.9/iostream:39,
                 from BinaryData.h:45,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/streambuf:810:7: error: 'std::basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>::operator=(const std::basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>&) [with _CharT = char; _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]' is private
       operator=(const basic_streambuf&) { return *this; };
       ^
In file included from log.h:58:0,
                 from BinaryData.h:51,
                 from TransactionBatch.h:133,
                 from TransactionBatch.cpp:9:
/usr/include/c++/4.9/sstream:64:11: error: within this context
     class basic_stringbuf : public basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>
           ^
TransactionBatch.cpp: In member function 'void TransactionBatch::unserialize_spenders(const std::vector<std::basic_string<char> >&, std::pair<unsigned int, unsigned int>&)':
TransactionBatch.cpp:252:13: error: use of deleted function 'std::basic_stringstream<char>& std::basic_stringstream<char>::operator=(const std::basic_stringstream<char>&)'
          ss = stringstream(idstr_ss);
             ^
Makefile:853: recipe for target 'libCppBlockUtils_la-TransactionBatch.lo' failed
make[3]: *** [libCppBlockUtils_la-TransactionBatch.lo] Error 1

[goatpig]

Build fails with current testing (a4e681c), latest Debian 8.7 based Whonix

What's your gcc version?

[Carlton Banks]

4.9

The .deb package for 0.95.99.1 complained to me about gcc 4.9, telling me I needed 5.something.

[goatpig]

It was build with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS so you would run into that issue indeed. Investigating the build issue on Debian Wheezy atm.

[goatpig]

Should be fixed.

[SimonBelmond]

Should be fixed.

Does that mean there will be a new .deb package soon, or was that another issue?

[Carlton Banks]

Should be fixed.

Does that mean there will be a new .deb package soon, or was that another issue?

It's probably separate to your issue, it's a build specific issue, and it appears goatpig has used the same version of Ubuntu that you are for at least some of the Debian Linux install packages (Ubuntu is a fork of Debian)


In other news, building works for me now thanks goatpig

[goatpig]

Should be fixed.

Does that mean there will be a new .deb package soon, or was that another issue?

There will be a new build to push in the new fixes, but I can't reproduce your issue.

This is what I got:

1) Install Ubuntu 16.04 from scratch
2) Installed Armory (0.95.99.2-testing, didn't install Core)

Run either ArmoryDB or armory succesfully from the terminal. I'm investigating the icon issues.

Try to run this:

Code:

> armory --offline

How far do you get?

[SimonBelmond]

Code:

> armory --offline

How far do you get?

Same as above. Also no icon for Armory (Offline). I might try another reinstall and install Armory first thing. Just have to find a place to put the blocks I just downloaded meanwhile.

[SimonBelmond]

Just tried again after fresh install of Ubuntu. I am just now downloading Ubuntu again and burning a new disk. Might maybe also be of interest is how the package looks in ubuntu SW center. Also if I open the package again, SW center does not recognize it's installed and asks me again if I want to install. If I do, it kind of takes way shorter then the first time. Uninsall just hung up out of SW center which previously worked with the package manager.

[Carlton Banks]

Just tried again after fresh install of Ubuntu. I am just now downloading Ubuntu again and burning a new disk. Might maybe also be of interest is how the package looks in ubuntu SW center. Also if I open the package again, SW center does not recognize it's installed and asks me again if I want to install. If I do, it kind of takes way shorter then the first time. Uninsall just hung up out of SW center which previously worked with the package manager.

Don't use the Software Center, that would be my advice.

Software Center uses dpkg or apt in the background anyway, just open a Terminal and use dpkg -i armory.deb (whatever the real filename for the package is) directly.

dpkg and apt-get are far more rigorously bug-tested on Debian (and derivatives like Ubuntu), in general you'll find that with all Linux software. The software ecosystem is too diverse for the (mostly unpaid) developers to test absolutely every combination of everything, and so expecting the GUI to work oftentimes ends with you solving the problem one way or another in a terminal shell. Just start in the shell, and you'll have less problems, and more skill, in the end.

[goatpig]

I don't know why it's branded as non free, seeing the source is available online. As for your issue, I can't reproduce (with or without Core installed). I would suggest you build from source to try things out.

You'd want to first uninstall armory, then run the following commands in a folder dedicated to the source:

Code:

git clone https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory.git
cd BitcoinArmory
git checkout testing
git submodule init
git submodule update
sh autogen.sh
./configure
make -j8
sudo make install

With that done, you can then run Armory from the terminal using 'armory'. You can uninstall by browsing to the source folder and running 'sudo make uninstall'

[SimonBelmond]

I don't know why it's branded as non free, seeing the source is available online. As for your issue, I can't reproduce (with or without Core installed). I would suggest you build from source to try things out.

You'd want to first uninstall armory, then run the following commands in a folder dedicated to the source:

Code:

git clone https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory.git
cd BitcoinArmory
git checkout testing
git submodule init
git submodule update
sh autogen.sh
./configure
make -j8
sudo make install

With that done, you can then run Armory from the terminal using 'armory'. You can uninstall by browsing to the source folder and running 'sudo make uninstall'

OK I will try that tonight just after Carltons tip. Thank you all. By the way I installed Ubuntu again from fresh disk of 16.04.2. Same behavior. I did use other package managers to install before but not the all terminal option.

[Carlton Banks]

Also, running dpkg -i will almost certainly give you more detail with any errors in the process, it will help goatpig if you post what it says.

And it also might simply work without errors using dpkg, and then we know the problem lies with the Software Center.

[SimonBelmond]

Carlton's tip didn't work either. It tells me it is successfully installed and then I have the same behavior. Building from source needed some dependancies installed. I did that and it seems up to

Code:

./configure

it worked fine.

However, the make process ends with:

Code:

make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig'
Makefile:1446: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig'
Makefile:430: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory'
Makefile:362: recipe for target 'all' failed
make: *** [all] Error 2

The install process then ends with:

Code:

libtool: install: /usr/bin/install -c DB1kIterTest /usr/local/bin/DB1kIterTest
make[4]: Nothing to be done for 'install-data-am'.
make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig/gtest'
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig/gtest'
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig/gtest'
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig'
swig -c++ -python -threads -D__GNUC__  CppBlockUtils.i 
/bin/bash: swig: command not found
Makefile:1725: recipe for target 'CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx' failed
make[2]: *** [CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx] Error 127
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig'
Makefile:1446: recipe for target 'install-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ben/ArmoryGit/BitcoinArmory/cppForSwig'
Makefile:430: recipe for target 'install-recursive' failed
make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1

There seem to be a lot of armory files created (including icons ;-)) but somehow installation failed. Any advice?

[goatpig]

sudo apt-get install swig

[SimonBelmond]

It's running now. Now I have to set up my node again and get it online. Thy for all the help. Was maybe one of the dependencies missing for running it from the .deb file?

Edit: Even though I kept the blocks, it is taking ages to synch the block headers. Could I have prevented this in any way?

[unamis76]

4) 0.96 won't produce these receive/change address types by default. You have to manually set the default in the Settings tab.

Thank you. I think I'll refrain from updating for the time being.