/bin/arch command missing in Gutsy and Hardy

[Timo Saarinen]

Binary package hint: util-linux

It seems that /bin/arch command is not installed in util-linux package in Gutsy and Hardy.

[Derald D. Woods (derald.woods)]

I am noticing the same thing. Has this command been removed and/or replaced?

[Derald D. Woods (derald.woods)]

After a little searching, I found that the 'uname -m' will serve the same purpose. I just made a one-line shell script, called '/bin/arch', to satisfy some existing build environments.

[Timo Saarinen (timosa2)]

Yeah, it's easy that make a workaround for this kind of simple bugs but still I would expect that the arch command is provided out of box. I found this bug when an installation script complained about missing command.

[LaMont Jones (lamont)]

/bin/arch is depricated upstream, and removed. please use uname -m in place of calls to /bin/arch.

[shinzo (zzador)]

Create a bash script in /bin named arch:

        #!/bin/bash

        unname -m

"lampp start" works fine with it

[balp (anders-arnholm)]

> /bin/arch is depricated upstream, and removed. please use uname -m in place of calls to /bin/arch.

No wounder Unix admins hate Linux, arch is and have been the common way to know what host you run at. But sure Linux, shall be it's own beast... There are for this reason tons of third party scripts using arch...

[balp (anders-arnholm)]

Maybe the drop of arch should be coordinated with the coreutils adding the same:

   arch(1) is deprecated in favor of "uname -m" or arch(1) from coreutils
   (>= 6.9+). The util-linux-ng package doesn't build arch by default,
   you have to use the option --enable-arch.

[KennoVO (kenno-xs4all)]

Problem is, there are a lot of applications that come with shell scripts that use /bin/arch, such as xammp, project looking glass, and MOE (the Molecular Operating Environment). Eliminating /bin/arch breaks them all. I really think the right thing to do is making the shell script that invokes "uname -m" part of util-linux . Else you'll get a lot of complaints from people using 3rd party software that relies on /bin/arch !

[KennoVO (kenno-xs4all)]

To avoid breaking 3rd party shell scripts, a /bin/arch shell script that invokes "uname -m" should be made part of util-linux .

[Timo Saarinen (timosa2)]

The fix suggested by KennoVO should be a very easy and safe to make. I wish it will be in Hardy Heron before it's published...

[LaMont Jones (lamont)]

Providing the script will just mean that the other packages are never fixed. Administrators who need /bin/arch can trivially create it.

A change reintroducing /bin/arch will not be accepted into Debian, nor should it be added to ubuntu.

[balp (anders-arnholm)]

The optimal solutions would have been to get coreutils upgraded at the same time as util_linux so the upstream move of this tool had been reflected into Ubuntu.

[Daniel Holth (dholth)]

LaMont Jones, I use Ubuntu instead of Debian or Gentoo because they actually seem to care about things working for the user. But any time I want to use software that's a few years old, it fails to work due to these kinds of trivial changes. On the other hand, 20 year old DOS and Windows software still works fine. So Windows users can use all the software written during the last 20 years, but Linux users can only use software that has been re-written during the last 3-5 years. Whose strategy is better?

[Mark C. Mason (mark-edt)]

Daniel, you're absolutely right. I'm trying to install Xilinx ISE 10.1 tools under
Ubuntu, and it failed because of no /bin/arch. More work and apparently
more job security for me, but it detracts from what I am trying to do.

 It is this kind of "My crap doesn't stink" attitude that has repeatedly steered me
away from MS products. We certainly don't need it in UN*X.

[Alisdair Tullo (alisdair)]

I have just encountered this bug while attempting to install IDL, a visualisation and analysis package commonly used by scientists and engineers. It seems extremely sensible to add a 2-line script to a package in order to fix this, given the benefits in terms of backwards compatibility and user experience.

[Javier Conti (javier-conti)]

If Ubuntu wants to enter the datacentre, in my opinion such things must be avoided.
When a company runs applications on a platform (being it server or desktop) the last thing they want to do is finding in the middle of a project that they have to spend time (thus money) in working around such things.

I find the cost of implementing a simple on line script, maybe in a separated but installed by default package, approaches 0. The gain, on the other hand, also seeing the comments to this bug, would be big.

JMTC, jco

[Joshua (joshudson)]

Removing arch == really dumb.