@update.afni.binaries “updates” AFNI to older version?


I decided to update my AFNI because I was told there were some good updates in the latest version. I checked my version before updating and the version on my machine seemed to be ‘January 11 2016(…)’. I can’t remember the number in the bracket now. Then I executed the command ’ @update.afni.binaries -defaults’. It took some time. I checked the version using ‘afni -ver’ after the updating was finished. But the output ‘Precompiled binary linux_xorg7_64: Aug 7 2009 (Version AFNI_17.0.09)’ made me surprised. I thought there was something wrong with the updating process . So I tried ’ @update.afni.binaries -defaults’ again. But the output told me ’ no update needed’ this time:

 [size=small][size=small]@update.afni.binaries -defaults[/size]
-- running @update.afni.binaries version 3.1, Feb 8, 2017
-- have AFNI binaries under /home/zhangyu/abin/linux_xorg7_64
-- install dir: using existing /home/zhangyu/abin/linux_xorg7_64
-- any downloads will be from https://afni.nimh.nih.gov via wget

-- attempting to install package linux_xorg7_64 under
   install dir: /home/zhangyu/abin/linux_xorg7_64...
-- have install dir
++ working in new temp dir, .tmp.install
++ getting install prog: wget linux_xorg7_64/@update.afni.binaries ...
wget https://afni.nimh.nih.gov/pub/dist/bin/linux_xorg7_64/@update.afni.binaries
--2017-02-13 15:21:39--  https://afni.nimh.nih.gov/pub/dist/bin/linux_xorg7_64/@update.afni.binaries
正在解析主机 afni.nimh.nih.gov (afni.nimh.nih.gov)..., 2607:f220:419:4103::114
正在连接 afni.nimh.nih.gov (afni.nimh.nih.gov)||:443... 已连接。
已发出 HTTP 请求,正在等待回应... 200 OK
长度: 33164 (32K) [text/plain]
正在保存至: “@update.afni.binaries”

100%[========================================================================>] 33,164       115KB/s   用时 0.3s 

2017-02-13 15:21:41 (115 KB/s) - 已保存 “@update.afni.binaries” [33164/33164])

-- @update.afni.binaries is current, continuing with this version...
++ downloading test file: wget linux_xorg7_64/afni ...
--2017-02-13 15:21:41--  https://afni.nimh.nih.gov/pub/dist/bin/linux_xorg7_64/afni
正在解析主机 afni.nimh.nih.gov (afni.nimh.nih.gov)..., 2607:f220:419:4103::114
正在连接 afni.nimh.nih.gov (afni.nimh.nih.gov)||:443... 已连接。
已发出 HTTP 请求,正在等待回应... 200 OK
长度: 14132169 (13M) [text/plain]
正在保存至: “afni”

100%[========================================================================>] 14,132,169   154KB/s   用时 2m 36s

2017-02-13 15:24:18 (88.3 KB/s) - 已保存 “afni” [14132169/14132169])

[size=medium][b]++ no update needed[/b][/size][/size]

And the output of ‘afni -ver’ is still ‘Precompiled binary linux_xorg7_64: Aug 7 2009 (Version AFNI_17.0.09)’ now. The status of the file align_epi_anat.py make me confused :

stat align_epi_anat.py
[size=small]文件(file name):"align_epi_anat.py"
  大小(capacity):156953    	块(number of blocks allocated):312        IO 块:4096   普通文件
设备(device number in hex):806h/2054d	Inode:6162804     硬链接:1
权限(permissions):(0755/-rwxr-xr-x)  Uid:( 1000/zhangyu)   Gid:( 1000/zhangyu)
最近访问(time of last access):2017-02-13 00:23:38.751913073 +0800
最近更改(time of last change):[b]2009-08-07 14:59:02.000000000 +0800[/b]
最近改动(time of last modification):[b]2017-02-13 00:23:02.263732138 +0800[/b]
创建时间(time of file birth):-[/size]

However, I find the new features [size=small]e.g. ‘@snapshot_volreg’[/size] provided by the latest version when I check them.
So what happened to my AFNI version?
I will be very appreciated with your answers.


Hi Yu,

AFNI_17.0.09 does not imply 2009, if that is what
you are thinking. Actually, the 17 suggests 2017,
though that might not be a permanent implication.

  • rick

Hi Rick,
Thank you!
The version number seems to be normal. But the date outputted by ‘afni -ver’ is 'Aug 7 2009 ’ while this output was ‘January 11 2016’ before updating. And the time (2009-08-07 14:59:02.000000000 +0800) of last change outputted by ‘stat align_epi_anat.py’ is weird.

That is interesting.

It is possibly the time stamp from when the file
was first created. And since it was subsequently
overwritten, that date has not changed. I am not

In any case, the modification date might be more
appropriate to consider.

  • rick