On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:09:42PM +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:08:53PM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:34:44PM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Baumann wrote:
> > > > If you use following patch to the source, then all will be OK:
> > > >
> > > > diff -uNr resource-agents.orig/ldirectord/OCF/ldirectord.in
> > > > resource-agents/ldirectord/OCF/ldirectord.in
> > > > --- resource-agents.orig/ldirectord/OCF/ldirectord.in 2010-02-15
> > > > 10:18:17.000000000 +0100
> > > > +++ resource-agents/ldirectord/OCF/ldirectord.in 2010-02-15
> > > > 10:19:26.000000000 +0100
> > > > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@
> > > >
> > > > . ${OCF_ROOT}/resource.d/heartbeat/.ocf-shellfuncs
> > > >
> > > > -LDIRCONF=${OCF_RESKEY_configfile:-...@sbindir@/ldirectord/ldirectord.cf}
> > > > -LDIRECTORD=${OCF_RESKEY_ldirectord:-...@sysconfdir@/ldirectord}
> > > > +LDIRCONF=${OCF_RESKEY_configfile:-...@sysconfdir@/ha.d/ldirectord.cf}
> > > > +LDIRECTORD=${OCF_RESKEY_ldirectord:-...@sbindir@/ldirectord}
> > >
> > > That looks good to me.
> >
> > Does anyone object. If not I'll put a version of this into hg.
>
> No objections. The patch is probably good, but I still don't
> understand how setting different defaults can fix a bug. Or has
> this bug already been fixed by Andreas?
I'm not sure either.
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
