update bacula-server 5.0.2 -> 5.0.3, Undefined symbol "ASN1_INTEGER_it

Dan Langille dan at langille.org
Tue Sep 21 23:51:31 UTC 2010


On 9/21/2010 4:46 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:48:50PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
>> On 2010-09-21 02:24, Wesley Shields wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 07:39:58PM +0200, olli hauer wrote:
>>>> On 2010-09-19 08:20, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
>>>>> FreeBSD 7.3-STABLE #0: Tue Sep  7 22:46:59 CEST 2010
>>>>> peo at candyman.i.inter-sonic.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64
>>>>>
>>>>> Portupgrade of bacula-server 5.0.2 ->  5.0.3
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting bacula_fd.
>>>>> /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/local/lib/libbac.so.5: Undefined symbol
>>>>> "ASN1_INTEGER_it"
>>>>> Starting bacula_sd.
>>>>> Starting bacula_dir.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one deselects "OPENSSL" and recompile bacula-fd will start without
>>>>> complaints.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a known issue with 5.0.3?
>>>>
>>>> No, can you provide me some more details.
>>>>
>>>> First make sure if you have both bacula-server and bacula-client installed
>>>> on the same machine both are build with(out) ssl support.
>>>>
>>>> Both ports install libs with the same name to the same place, but if the
>>>> client is build/installed first "with SSL support", and then the server
>>>> without SSL support you can see exact the described issue.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the two ports register CONFLICTS then, thus making it
>>> (normally) impossible for both to be installed on the same host?
>>>
>>> -- WXS
>>
>> At the moment I'm thinking about to install the client part within the
>> server part as one port and mark bacula-client/bacula-server as conflict.

That sounds OK.

> Should probably rename bacula-server to just "bacula" then as it will
> include both the client and the server. And have separate ports for
> server and client if that's all the user wants. Conflicts will have to
> be set accordingly.

We had bacula before.... Why don't we just keep it as bacula-server and 
add an announcement that it now installs bacula-fd by default.

>> Until now all my backup servers from different vendors doing the same
>> and I see no reason to not backup the backup-server.
>>
>> However this will only solve the shared lib problem in those two ports
>> and there are some other slaves.

I don't know how to solve it all.  I am very weak in this area.

>> For the SSL thing a nice way would be a shared option like a electrical
>> cross switch for such ports, on/off for all master/slaves not independent.

How hard is a multi-port switch?

>> Maybe Dan (the maintainer) has some additional thoughts, so I set him on CC.
>
> I'll leave all this up to you all. I trust the port is in good hands
> between Dan and yourself. Thanks for working on it!

I'm happy with the stuff Olli is doing.

-- 
Dan Langille - http://langille.org/


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list