On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 08:28:25AM +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Hello Marco, > > I think you have completely misunderstood the point of my email and the > problem I posed. I'm not sure I really understand the problem you are posing. I'm wondering if it is really a problem (I know it is for you but I didn't have time to have an indepth search into what and why)
> > I have no problem with changing the library version from 1 to 5, in fact, it > was I who suggested that you do it based on the Bacula version. This was and > is in my opinion the right thing to do. Sure it is but it has some impact. > > The problem is that for some reason changing the version (all components were > changed correctly and installed correctly) did not resolve the problem but in > fact created a whole new problem which is the complete failure of Bacula to > be able to run. As I explained in the previous mail changing the major number only fixes one specific problem and that is you can have both Bacula Enterprise Edition and the Community edition on one server. But symbol changes are still a problem. > > I was trying to explain that according to the new numbering scheme, > everything > was correctly compiled and installed -- however, it left the old 1.0.0 > version of the shared objects installed. I expected that would only use a > bit of disk space, but in fact, having the old shared objects installed in > the same directory as the new shared objects prevented Bacula from running -- > or at least printed out the error messages I pasted below. I must say that I don't understand this, as you ldd clearly shows it was linked against the 5.0.0 libs. I will copy my old 1.0.0 libs also in and see if I reproduce the behaviour. > > This indicates to me that we are "missing" something -- at least I don't yet > understand what was going wrong. > > So bottom line: There are two new problems: > > 1. How to ensure that any old shared objects are removed when they should be? I think this is a packaging problem, you could add some code to the install target of the Makefile but the whole idea is that you can have multiple major versions of a lib. Removing all other version of the libs kind of defeats that idea. > > 2. Why does not Bacula run properly (or at least why does it print error > messages) when the old shared objects exist, and the new (re-numbered) shared > objects are properly installed? I'm not sure, I'm wondering if it wasn't just because the 5.0.0 libs were outdated. You said you removed all libs and then installed them again, I'm wondering if you removed the 1.0.0 version and tried again you would just get the same problems. Marco ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace, Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
