iraf.net

Hi,

I'm installing IRAF on linux (RedHat Enterprise 4). I basically followed the
instructions in the document "linuxiraf.ps", but "cl" wouldn't run. Here's what
I did:

1. when I ran ./install -n, it returned a bunch of error messages related to
missing symbolic links (cl, generic, mkiraf,...etc) and I made them manually
as the warning messages point where they should be. Here's my first
question. Assuming that I did everything correctly, was I supposed to end
up having those links in the end?

2. checking with ./install -n once more (no more such warning), I finally ran
the install script without -n, and I didn't get any error in the end of the
installation. However, once I relogin as a user "iraf" and run cl,
it complains as follows:
"cl.e: cannot execute binary file"Can comebody please help me out with this?
Thank you.

I have a similar problem with Suse9.0 on AMD64 platform. cl is not really recognized and returns a y/n/e/a prompt which leads nowhere. I did finally manage to get IRAF cl up and running under cygwin on XP. The install.ps file that list the directory structure is rather outdated (or at least that was the problem with cygwin install). I had to copy & paste from the irafbin cygwin.bin directory, delete the empy link in the iraf/iraf directory, and paste in the new directory and IRAF cl finally came to life. I still cannot open an image or do anything with a fits file. TV display is broken. I have thousands of fits files and really want to do some advanced IRAF routines with them, but may have to wait until the cygwin ports are finalized.RobertB

Kitty,In your email you gave the complete error message saying that the path /iraf/iraf/bin.linux/..... couldnt be found. The proper architecture for RedHat Enterprise should have the binaries installed in /iraf/iraf/bin.redhat/.... (and likewise for the NOAO binaries). If you indeed put the binaries in a 'bin.linux' directory then rename this to 'bin.redhat'.Also note that the '-n' flag to the instal script doesn't actually install anything but simply does a dry run. It should do all the same checks (and complain about missing files) but you need to run the script (as root) without the '-n' to install the commands (rather than make the links by hand). The script does some other things as well so just rerun it after fixing the directory name.As for the followup:[quote:a5082c5e3c]I have a similar problem with Suse9.0 on AMD64 platform. cl is not really recognized and returns a y/n/e/a prompt which leads nowhere. I did finally manage to get IRAF cl up and running under cygwin on XP. The install.ps file that list the directory structure is rather outdated (or at least that was the problem with cygwin install). I had to copy & paste from the irafbin cygwin.bin directory, delete the empy link in the iraf/iraf directory, and paste in the new directory and IRAF cl finally came to life.[/quote:a5082c5e3c]I suspect a similar problem with the directory structure. The /iraf/iraf/bin.cygwin link should point to a real 'bin.cygwin' directory that exists in /iraf/irafbin. If you use the directory structure outlined in the install you shouldn't need to change the links at all. Did the install script complain about the directory structure when you ran it?Also, what exactly is the error message when using a FITS file, they should be supported directly and there are no known problems under Cygwin. The display problem is answered in your other post.Cheers,
-Mike

Actually, you are quite right. After examining the links, they did point to where they should. It took a few attempts to get it all right, but the structure is as you say. The confusing part was figuring out how to manipulate the unpacking in cygwin. I did not get it right the first few times.Yes, the functions do work with fits in IRAF, sometimes the output is in .imh and .pix so you have to use imcopy to get the fits to export.
One of the strange things I came across was that a fits file that has the extension in caps (.FIT) has to be typed in in lower case (.fit) otherwise it complains that the file does not exist. Just one of those syntax things.I am very pleased to finally be able to see IRAF and explore it.
Definitely worth the time it took!!!RobertB