0.96.4 RC3

[goatpig]

Binaries: https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory/releases/tag/v0.96.3.992

Test away.

[PhoenixFire]

No problems so far. Thanks, goatpig!

[idoB]

Verified: the problem with splashscreen freeze that was present in RC2 ('Start in' field in shortcut) is solved in RC3. THANKS!

[jojo69]

awesome, been waiting for this one, grabbing now

[TimS]

I started Armory with --satoshi-datadir="D:\Bitcoin" and it's not connecting to my Bitcoin Core node. The log looks like it reads this, but then looks for the DB in the wrong place:

Code:

2018-01-15 22:07:29 (INFO) -- ArmoryUtils.pyc:1301 -     satoshiHome     : D:\Bitcoin
2018-01-15 22:07:32 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:197 - DB error: C:\Users\[user]\AppData\Roaming/Bitcoin/blocks is not a valid path

Let me know if I should provide full logs or do something different.

[droark]

Is that the full path where the blockchain resides? It's not in D:\Bitcoin\blocks or something similar?

[TimS]

Is that the full path where the blockchain resides? It's not in D:\Bitcoin\blocks or something similar?

No, D:\Bitcoin\ is the home directory, and then D:\Bitcoin\blocks\ is where the blockchain resides. I tried it the other way, no change:

Code:

2018-01-16 06:18:41 (INFO) -- ArmoryUtils.pyc:1301 -     satoshiHome     : D:\Bitcoin\blocks
...
2018-01-16 06:18:44 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:197 - DB error: C:\Users\[user]\AppData\Roaming/Bitcoin/blocks is not a valid path

[droark]

satoshi-datadir does need to be D:\Bitcoin\blocks, but anyway, please post your full logs using this particular flag. Thanks.

[TimS]

Soo the problem is solved. I noticed that ArmoryDB.exe (probably from an older version of Armory) was still running. I ended that process, moved log files, and now Armory is working. Thanks for the help.

[alomar]

as a housekeeping note, when we compile this new version, armory_0.96.3.992_src.tar.gz, should we be doing anything to the old version first (uninstall)?  or just compile over the top of the old version w/o worrying about anything?

[goatpig]

compile or install?

Before you compile you should "make clean". If you install, you should "make uninstall" on the previous version before "make clean".

[alomar]

compile or install?

hmm, what's the difference in this case and which one should i do and why?  i want to upgrade to this new version from 0.96.3.991

[goatpig]

"Compile" is to build the binaries. Install is to setup the binaries on your system. If you use my builds you are only installing, if you build from source, you are "compiling" then installing. If you build from source you could also only "compile" and run the binaries from the source folder, without installing.

I put compile in quotes cause the actual term is to build the binaries.

[alomar]

"Compile" is to build the binaries. Install is to setup the binaries on your system. If you use my builds you are only installing, if you build from source, you are "compiling" then installing. If you build from source you could also only "compile" and run the binaries from the source folder, without installing.

I put compile in quotes cause the actual term is to build the binaries.

so i compiled my current version and run armory via the CLI by typing "armory" using the /usr/local/bin.  thus, i'm running the binaries from the source folder without an install, correct, ?  if so, do i just "make clean" before i compile this new version?

edit:  wait, i think i ran "sudo make install" after compiling on my system for my current version.  does that mean i did both a compile and a local install?  if that's the case, then i need to run "make uninstall" on the previous version before "make clean", right?

[PhoenixFire]

so i compiled my current version and run armory via the CLI by typing "armory" using the /usr/local/bin.  thus, i'm running the binaries from the source folder without an install, correct, ?  if so, do i just "make clean" before i compile this new version?

edit:  wait, i think i ran "sudo make install" after compiling on my system for my current version.  does that mean i did both a compile and a local install?  if that's the case, then i need to run "make uninstall" on the previous version before "make clean", right?

No to the first paragraph, yes to the second:

make uninstall  (sudo if it fails)
make clean
make
make install (sudo if it fails)

[goatpig]

"sudo make install" after compiling on my system for my current version.  does that mean i did both a compile and a local install?  if that's the case, then i need to run "make uninstall" on the previous version before "make clean", right?

Typically you don't need to, as the same files as the previous install will be copied over, overwriting the previous install. But it's preferable to "make uninstall", as it guarantees the old files are removed, in case some of these files are not covered by the new install.

[alomar]

"sudo make install" after compiling on my system for my current version.  does that mean i did both a compile and a local install?  if that's the case, then i need to run "make uninstall" on the previous version before "make clean", right?

Typically you don't need to, as the same files as the previous install will be copied over, overwriting the previous install. But it's preferable to "make uninstall", as it guarantees the old files are removed, in case some of these files are not covered by the new install.

yeah, so i didn't do a "make uninstall", just a "make clean", before compiling this new version and everything is running well.  

thank you very much for all the great work.  this software is as well honed and running as i've ever seen it.  give me a way to sort thousands of UTXO's in Coin Control or search quickly for specific one's and i'll have an orgasm

[goatpig]

Sorting is a PITA to implement in GUI so don't hold your breath for that one.

[bwhm]

Not sure where to ask this question so I'm trying here:

I have tried installing Armory on an offline computer using Ubuntu 16.04, but failed due to the missing dependencies a couple other people have mentioned. I saw using 14.04 would help, but based on the age of my CPU, I guess I would stop at the same point as rothbart in the 0.96.2 release thread.

I'm sure you have better things to do, but are there any plans on making an offline bundle compatible with shitty old CPUs?

Thanks for all your work!

[goatpig]

There are builds for old CPUs (gcc4.7). Offline bundles are a different thing. They're a build + the collection of necessary dependencies to run the software. You can get these dependencies from the relevant public repository and they will work with your CPU as long as you chose the right architecture.

Put another way, if you are missing dependencies, you can simply grab those on your own. I test the offline bundles against freshly installed VMs, so as far as I know, they are fully functional. If you are missing dependencies on your machine, might as well list them here so that I can get an idea what's missing.

Installing dependencies is a one time thing (as long as you don't reinstall the OS). Once you have an offline bundle installed and functional, you most likely won't need the offline bundle for the next version, just package. I make a point in not inflating the list of dependencies needlessly, so that part should remain true. Matter of fact, I've drastically reduced it since 0.93. In other words, you could install the 0.93 offline bundle, update Armory to 0.96.4 and most likely get away with it.