[GRASS-user] error in remove mask

[Nikos Alexandris]

* Giuseppe Amatulli <giuseppe.amatulli at gmail.com> [2017-05-24 14:59:02 -0400]:

>Hi all,
>I have a strange error when I'm try to remove the mask
>
>GRASS 7.0.2 (loc_river_fill_GLOBE):~ > r.mask -r

Dear Giuseppe,

Are you bound to 7.0.2?  7.2 is the latest released version.

>Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "/gpfs/apps/hpc.rhel7/Apps/GRASS/7.0.2/grass-7.0.2/scripts/r.mask",
>line 184, in <module>
>    main()
>  File "/gpfs/apps/hpc.rhel7/Apps/GRASS/7.0.2/grass-7.0.2/scripts/r.mask",
>line 104, in main
>    type = 'raster', name = 'MASK')
>  File
>"/gpfs/apps/hpc.rhel7/Apps/GRASS/7.0.2/grass-7.0.2/etc/python/grass/script/core.py",
>line 394, in run_command
>    return handle_errors(returncode, returncode, args, kwargs)
>  File
>"/gpfs/apps/hpc.rhel7/Apps/GRASS/7.0.2/grass-7.0.2/etc/python/grass/script/core.py",
>line 312, in handle_errors
>    returncode=returncode)
>grass.exceptions.CalledModuleError: Module run None ['g.remove', '--q',
>'-f', 'type=raster', 'name=MASK'] ended with error
>Process ended with non-zero return code -11. See errors in the (error)
>output.
>[Raster MASK present]

What does `g.list -m raster` say?

>even if i try to remove
>the MASK directly
>g.remove -f type=raster name=MASK
>or the file associate to it
>g.remove -f type=raster name=UNIT3753
>I get Segmentation fault


would you have time to debug this one? See
https://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_Debugging.

As a last resort, did you try to hard-remove manually (as per rm -rf) all files
related to MASK and UNIT3735 (inside the directories cell, fcell, cell_misc and
cell_hd)?


>I try also to r.in.gdal the file again, the file is imported successfully,
>but I still not able to remove the MASK.
>
>In the past I have used the UNIT3753-raster   several time without problem
>than one week ago I used to create another data set
>r.patch input="UNIT3753,UNIT4000" output="UNIT3753_4000"

>Could be that the UNIT3753 raster is "link" to the UNIT3753_4000 and lock
>any kind of operation associate to it?

Unless I miss something, the answer is no. `r.patch` produces a new and
independent map.

Nikos