So, it appears to me that the installer modifies files others than those self contained in the installation folder. This conclusion was made because now after the installer ran and installed a separate copy of sequoia, if I try to run the old binary version it goes off without a hitch!
The only difference between startup files is the explicit setting of the SEQUOIA_HOME variable, which in the binary version is set by a /etc/profile.d/sequoia.sh script. And with no modification to the binary version the controller will run. The installer must have made some sort of global change that made the binary work as well. Any ideas? Martin Dale Lyness -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Cecchet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sequoia general mailing list Subject: Re: [Community] Binary versus Installer Hi Martin, Preferably use the Sequoia mailing list for Sequoia related questions. The community list is only used for community announcements like new project releases or events. Regarding the installer, it alters the scripts in the post-install phase to properly set environment variables like SEQUOIA_HOME. Note that you can run the installer without the graphics by providing it with the xml file containing the components you want to be installed. If you want to stick with the binary package, you can install it and diff the files in the bin/ directory with the files generated by the installer and that should get you going. Thanks again for your feedback, Emmanuel > So interestingly enough, after being completely stumped by the binary > package of sequoia 2.10.10, we ran the graphical installer program. > Using the exact same controller and virtualdatabase configuration > files the new copy ran flawlessly. > > This is directly related to my titleless emailing about the > XmlComponent class not being found by the controller. > > So my question to the community is "What in the world does the > installer do to make sequoia work?" this question is posed because > based on the documentation sequoia seems to be completely self > contained and not in need of this graphical installer. We where > installing using the binary distribution and following the manual to a T. > > Is it possible the installer and binary versions have slightly > different code bases? I know this is a long shot but we are seriously > stumped as why the installer version worked. > > Ideally, we don't want to use the installer. > > Any thoughts are welcome and appreciated. > > Sincerely, > > Martin Dale Lyness > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Emmanuel Cecchet FTO @ Frog Thinker Open Source Development & Consulting -- Web: http://www.frogthinker.org email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: emmanuel_cecchet _______________________________________________ Sequoia mailing list [email protected] https://forge.continuent.org/mailman/listinfo/sequoia
