etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 20, 2012, 04:09:27 PM |
|
Hey, wait a minute, if that's all it was, then it shouldn't have worked at all, because I don't have python 2.7, so the python version obviously doesn't make any difference at all. Where exactly did psy's error come from? You know what, just remove libpython from the dependency list, put up one version per architecture, and see if that works on both my and psy's system. If it does, problem solved. Except for the problem of why it didn't work on psy's system originally after he hacked the dependencies, that trick should have worked...
Yeah, I was hoping that my dependencies hack would work. After all it asks for libpython2.6 or superior, doesn't it? Isn't that what >=2.6 means? Equal or superior? I will try it again and post results in a while. Well, the dependency in that case was wrong. It needs to be =2.6, because the library was compiled with libpython2.6, which causes fatal problems with the program if the user only has python2.7. Make sure you "dpkg -r armory" before trying. I just want to make sure you don't add complications by having mixed version of the package. I haven't figured out how to get dpkg-builder to increment the debian build numeber (i.e. increase it from "armory_0.74-1" to "armory_0.74-2"). One more thing to work on...
|
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 20, 2012, 04:25:59 PM |
|
Ok, I removed the previous package. Instealled the new amd64-python2.7... ...and it works As soon as I get some extra BTC in my wallet gonna throw you some for all the trouble. After all I was the only one to complaint.
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 20, 2012, 04:39:09 PM |
|
Ok, I removed the previous package. Instealled the new amd64-python2.7... ...and it works As soon as I get some extra BTC in my wallet gonna throw you some for all the trouble. After all I was the only one to complaint. Fantastic! I wonder if this means that I have to maintain separate packages based on python version... You might've been one of the only people to try it, too! I don't know how widespread the issue is when I only have a couple people try and one fails... For reference, what OS are you running?
|
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 20, 2012, 04:52:21 PM |
|
For reference, what OS are you running?
Ubuntu 12.04 x64 BTW, you planning on having Mac .dmg's?
|
|
|
|
Stemby
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2450
Merit: 1008
|
|
April 20, 2012, 06:43:53 PM |
|
|
“…virtual currencies, could have a substitution effect on central bank money if they become widely accepted.” ECB Report, October 2012
|
|
|
Red Emerald
|
|
April 20, 2012, 10:01:52 PM |
|
Only online armory requires bitcoind. Offline armory doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Onichan
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2012, 11:47:48 PM |
|
So I remember seeing you talking about adding the no forced transfer fee https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22434.100 into this. Are you still planning this? I spent many hours trying to compile that, but couldn't get it to work on windows and if you are planning on incorporating it sometime soon then I would be able to stop messing with it.
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 20, 2012, 11:55:20 PM |
|
So I remember seeing you talking about adding the no forced transfer fee https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22434.100 into this. Are you still planning this? I spent many hours trying to compile that, but couldn't get it to work on windows and if you are planning on incorporating it sometime soon then I would be able to stop messing with it. I believe, in that same discussion, I mentioned how it wasn't going to be possible until I get independent networking. Because the default Satoshi client behavior rejects the zero-fee tx, and Satoshi is Armory's only link to the Bitcoin network. There's no way around it without implementing something hack-y, or just waiting until I can get time to do independent networking. Unfortunately, that may be a while... However, Armory has the same fee rules programmed into it as the Satoshi nodes, so if you always set it to zero, and accept the recommended fee if it pops up, you're paying the minimum necessary to meet those rules. Beyond that, there's not much I can offer you (other than a promise that it will be implemented when independent networking is).
|
|
|
|
Onichan
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
April 21, 2012, 02:50:19 AM |
|
So I remember seeing you talking about adding the no forced transfer fee https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=22434.100 into this. Are you still planning this? I spent many hours trying to compile that, but couldn't get it to work on windows and if you are planning on incorporating it sometime soon then I would be able to stop messing with it. I believe, in that same discussion, I mentioned how it wasn't going to be possible until I get independent networking. Because the default Satoshi client behavior rejects the zero-fee tx, and Satoshi is Armory's only link to the Bitcoin network. There's no way around it without implementing something hack-y, or just waiting until I can get time to do independent networking. Unfortunately, that may be a while... However, Armory has the same fee rules programmed into it as the Satoshi nodes, so if you always set it to zero, and accept the recommended fee if it pops up, you're paying the minimum necessary to meet those rules. Beyond that, there's not much I can offer you (other than a promise that it will be implemented when independent networking is). Ah ok well thanks. Also I tested your custom port version and tried a handful of 62,200 ports and it always gave that problem but 61,119 and below appear to work. No idea whats up with the 62200 and above.
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 21, 2012, 02:55:59 AM |
|
Also I tested your custom port version and tried a handful of 62,200 ports and it always gave that problem but 61,119 and below appear to work. No idea whats up with the 62200 and above.
Good to know! Maybe I will choose a port that is in a more-normal range: I assumed that picking a huge number would decrease the likelihood that any other program was using that port, but apparently not all systems like those big ports... Any guidance on how I should select a port? Bitcoin uses 8333 and 18333 (testnet)... how were those chosen and how did we know they weren't going to be consumed by other processes? Any other comments about it working in Windows? I'm curious if there's any continuing artifacts due to RAM-reduction. It seems to work fine on my VM, but many others have reported issues I can't reproduce
|
|
|
|
Foxpup
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4508
Merit: 3183
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
|
|
April 21, 2012, 03:14:33 AM |
|
Also I tested your custom port version and tried a handful of 62,200 ports and it always gave that problem but 61,119 and below appear to work. No idea whats up with the 62200 and above.
Good to know! Maybe I will choose a port that is in a more-normal range: I assumed that picking a huge number would decrease the likelihood that any other program was using that port, but apparently not all systems like those big ports... Any guidance on how I should select a port? Bitcoin uses 8333 and 18333 (testnet)... how were those chosen and how did we know they weren't going to be consumed by other processes? Ports in the range 1024-49151 are supposed to be registered with the IANA for a specific protocol, though in practice many protocols that use these port aren't registered (Bitcoin isn't registered, for example). The range 49152–65535 is designated for private or experimental purposes such as what you're doing, and doesn't need to be registered. How do you chose a port above 49151? You pick one at random and hope no-one else is using it. Easy. (This plan doesn't always work out so well for ports below 49152.) No idea why Windows doesn't seem to like ports above 61119; there's nothing special about them, as far as I know.
|
Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 21, 2012, 04:15:51 AM |
|
Ok, I removed the previous package. Instealled the new amd64-python2.7... ...and it works As soon as I get some extra BTC in my wallet gonna throw you some for all the trouble. After all I was the only one to complaint. FYI, you're not going crazy. I just tested the python2.6 package on a fresh install of 12.04 and it failed. I had to recompile the package without the (= python2.6) in order to get it to install, and it appears that the dependency check is valid. Argh! So this means I will have to have 4 different packages for Ubuntu: {i386, amd64}{python2.6, python2.7}. Anyone who cannot use one of those packages can just follow the regular build-from source instructions: they've been fairly unobtrusive so far, just needed the desktop icons. If you're using a different distribution than one of the modern Ubuntus, your probably capable of checking your python version or compiling yourself (I'll list Ubuntu release versions with the packages). Any ideas on how I might create an all-in-one offline installation in Ubuntu? For now, maybe I'll just "endorse" 10.04 32-bit, execute the offline package download on 10.04 and tar up all the dependencies into one downloadable thing.
|
|
|
|
Foxpup
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4508
Merit: 3183
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
|
|
April 21, 2012, 05:40:32 AM |
|
Any ideas on how I might create an all-in-one offline installation in Ubuntu? For now, maybe I'll just "endorse" 10.04 32-bit, execute the offline package download on 10.04 and tar up all the dependencies into one downloadable thing.
Well, you could include the dependencies, but the dependencies have dependencies of their own, so you have to include those, as well as their dependencies... If you keep going on like that you'll end up creating a whole distribution just for Armory. Which is a perfectly valid option, and probably a good idea if you want to ensure a completely secure software environment, but it's probably more effort than it's worth at this stage. Other than that I don't think there's any way to guarantee that all the dependencies will be met without having to go online.
|
Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
|
|
|
Foxpup
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4508
Merit: 3183
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
|
|
April 21, 2012, 06:34:15 AM |
|
Ok, I removed the previous package. Instealled the new amd64-python2.7... ...and it works As soon as I get some extra BTC in my wallet gonna throw you some for all the trouble. After all I was the only one to complaint. FYI, you're not going crazy. I just tested the python2.6 package on a fresh install of 12.04 and it failed. I had to recompile the package without the (= python2.6) in order to get it to install, and it appears that the dependency check is valid. Argh! So this means I will have to have 4 different packages for Ubuntu: {i386, amd64}{python2.6, python2.7}. Anyone who cannot use one of those packages can just follow the regular build-from source instructions: they've been fairly unobtrusive so far, just needed the desktop icons. If you're using a different distribution than one of the modern Ubuntus, your probably capable of checking your python version or compiling yourself (I'll list Ubuntu release versions with the packages). What the Hell? If psy's not going then crazy, then perhaps I am: $ sudo dpkg --force-depends -i armory_0.74-python2.7-1_amd64.deb [sudo] password for foxpup: Selecting previously deselected package armory. (Reading database ... 154253 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking armory (from armory_0.74-python2.7-1_amd64.deb) ... dpkg: armory: dependency problems, but configuring anyway as you requested: armory depends on libpython2.7; however: Package libpython2.7 is not installed. Setting up armory (0.74-python2.7-1) ... $ python --version Python 2.6.6 $ python /usr/share/armory/ArmoryQt.py --nettimeout 10 ******************************************************************************** Loading Armory Engine: Armory Version: 0.74 PyBtcAddress Version: 1.00 PyBtcWallet Version: 1.35 Detected Operating system: Linux User home-directory : /home/foxpup Satoshi BTC directory : /home/foxpup/.bitcoin/ Satoshi blk0001.dat : /home/foxpup/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat Armory home dir : /home/foxpup/.armory/ Using settings file: /home/foxpup/.armory/ArmorySettings.txt Loading wallets... Number of wallets read in: 1 Wallet (7FVyhG1d): "Primary Wallet " (No Encryption) Internet connection is Available: True Satoshi Client is Available: True Loading blockchain Attempting to read blockchain from file: /home/foxpup/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat /home/foxpup/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat is 1165.64 MB Syncing wallets with blockchain... Syncing wallet: 7FVyhG1d Loading blockchain took 56.7 seconds Usermode: Advanced Handshake finished, connection open! Attempting to close the main window! The python 2.7 version works absolutely fine with python 2.6! What's going on here? If it requires a specific version of libpython, why does this work? And yes, I did remove the version I already had prior to installing this one. But why does it work? I don't understand.
|
Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 21, 2012, 06:56:40 AM |
|
Mistery?
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 21, 2012, 01:29:12 PM Last edit: April 21, 2012, 05:47:27 PM by etotheipi |
|
Any ideas on how I might create an all-in-one offline installation in Ubuntu? For now, maybe I'll just "endorse" 10.04 32-bit, execute the offline package download on 10.04 and tar up all the dependencies into one downloadable thing.
Well, you could include the dependencies, but the dependencies have dependencies of their own, so you have to include those, as well as their dependencies... If you keep going on like that you'll end up creating a whole distribution just for Armory. Which is a perfectly valid option, and probably a good idea if you want to ensure a completely secure software environment, but it's probably more effort than it's worth at this stage. Other than that I don't think there's any way to guarantee that all the dependencies will be met without having to go online. That's easy. I create a fresh installation, then execute the offline-package-installation -- I select the two top-level dependencies in Synaptic and it collects the entire dependency tree for me. When I select "Generate Download List", I get a wget-list of all 65 packages (it's 65 if I do the build-dependencies). I run the script and zip it up the directory. I think it's about 100 MB. It's not small, but it's acceptable. But it will be tied the particular distro I did it for... As for the python thing: check that you don't have both pythons on your system. As I said before, even though 11.10 is python2.7, it did work with my 2.6 build, because it apparently has libpython2.6.so on it (no idea why). Maybe I should try the other way: build everything on 2.7 and it might work on lower...?
|
|
|
|
etotheipi (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
April 21, 2012, 09:45:42 PM |
|
Teaser:Gonna try to make this and URI handling part of Armory version 0.75. And it will be the first version distributed with fully automated installers (with uninstallers), in both Linux and Windows.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 21, 2012, 09:58:54 PM |
|
that looks cool. can't wait to try it out!
|
|
|
|
Foxpup
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4508
Merit: 3183
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
|
|
April 22, 2012, 12:55:57 AM |
|
Any ideas on how I might create an all-in-one offline installation in Ubuntu? For now, maybe I'll just "endorse" 10.04 32-bit, execute the offline package download on 10.04 and tar up all the dependencies into one downloadable thing.
Well, you could include the dependencies, but the dependencies have dependencies of their own, so you have to include those, as well as their dependencies... If you keep going on like that you'll end up creating a whole distribution just for Armory. Which is a perfectly valid option, and probably a good idea if you want to ensure a completely secure software environment, but it's probably more effort than it's worth at this stage. Other than that I don't think there's any way to guarantee that all the dependencies will be met without having to go online. That's easy. I create a fresh installation, then execute the offline-package-installation -- I select the two top-level dependencies in Synaptic and it collects the entire dependency tree for me. When I select "Generate Download List", I get a wget-list of all 65 packages (it's 65 if I do the build-dependencies). I run the script and zip it up the directory. I think it's about 100 MB. It's not small, but it's acceptable. But it will be tied the particular distro I did it for... 100MB for an installer that's only guaranteed to work on one particular distro is easy? I think you would be better off creating a whole distribution. A distribution would definitely be the Right Thing for a one-step installation on an offline system, and it lets you do things like remove the network drivers to guarantee that it stays an offline system. As for the python thing: check that you don't have both pythons on your system. As I said before, even though 11.10 is python2.7, it did work with my 2.6 build, because it apparently has libpython2.6.so on it (no idea why). Maybe I should try the other way: build everything on 2.7 and it might work on lower...?
$ ls -d /usr/lib/*python* /usr/lib/libpyglib-2.0-python2.5.so.0 /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so /usr/lib/libpyglib-2.0-python2.5.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so.1 /usr/lib/libpyglib-2.0-python2.6.so.0 /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so.1.0 /usr/lib/libpyglib-2.0-python2.6.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib/python2.4 /usr/lib/libpython2.5.so.1 /usr/lib/python2.5 /usr/lib/libpython2.5.so.1.0 /usr/lib/python2.6 /usr/lib/libpython2.6.a Nope. Just compile on 2.7, remove the libpython2.7 dependency, and see what happens. Hopefully there's someone else with python 2.6 who can confirm that I'm not going crazy.
|
Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4I am not on the scammers' paradise known as Telegram! Do not believe anyone claiming to be me off-forum without a signed message from the above address! Accept no excuses and make no exceptions!
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 22, 2012, 01:20:06 AM |
|
Except for the fact that you're not compiling, you may be right.
Also, what you mean by remove the dependency, is it completely removing it or changing it to libpython2.6?
|
|
|
|
|