Bacula 5.0.3

Wesley Shields wxs at FreeBSD.org
Tue Aug 17 23:47:39 UTC 2010


On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:47:59PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 8/8/2010 10:59 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
> > Allan:
> >
> > For Bacula 5.0.2 you submitted patches which included:
> >
> > patch-src-cats-Makefile.in
> > patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in
> > patch-src-lib-Makefile.in
> >
> > In particular, I'm interested in things like this (hugely condensed for
> > clarity):
> >
> > - -release $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT).$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION).$(LIBBAC_LT_AGE)
> > + -version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_CURRENT):$(LIBBAC_LT_REVISION):$(LIBBAC_LT_A
> >
> > Of note, 5.0.3 uses this:
> >
> > -release $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE)
> >
> > I am not sure how best to patch for 5.0.3.
> >
> > I first tried: version-info $(LIBBAC_LT_RELEASE)
> >
> > But encountered this error:
> >
> > Making libbac.la ...
> > /var/ports/usr/home/dan/src/sysutils/bacula-server/work/bacula-5.0.3/libtool
> > --silent --tag=CXX --mode=link /usr/bin/c++ -L/usr/local/lib -o
> > libbac.la attr.lo base64.lo berrno.lo bsys.lo bget_msg.lo bnet.lo
> > bnet_server.lo runscript.lo bsock.lo bpipe.lo bsnprintf.lo btime.lo
> > cram-md5.lo crc32.lo crypto.lo daemon.lo edit.lo fnmatch.lo
> > guid_to_name.lo hmac.lo jcr.lo lex.lo alist.lo dlist.lo md5.lo
> > message.lo mem_pool.lo openssl.lo plugins.lo priv.lo queue.lo bregex.lo
> > rwlock.lo scan.lo serial.lo sha1.lo signal.lo smartall.lo rblist.lo
> > tls.lo tree.lo util.lo var.lo watchdog.lo workq.lo btimers.lo
> > address_conf.lo breg.lo htable.lo lockmgr.lo -export-dynamic -rpath
> > /usr/local/lib -version-info 5.0.3 -lwrap -lz
> > libtool: link: CURRENT `5.0.3' must be a nonnegative integer
> > libtool: link: `5.0.3' is not valid version information
> > *** Error code 1
> >
> >
> > I don't know enough about your patch to proceed with confidence.
> 
> I tried this solution:
> 
> cd files
> rm patch-src-lib-Makefile.in patch-src-findlib-Makefile.in 
> patch-src-cats-Makefile.in
> 
> Then I removed all lib/* entries from pkg-plist and pkg-plist.client
> 
> A sample test job ran just fine.
> 
> However, this seems to undo the advances made in 5.0.2 regarding 
> libaries.  In 5.0.3 the libraries are named:
> 
> libbac-5.0.3.so
> libbacpy-5.0.3.so
> 
> etc.
> 
> Whereas, the 5.0.2 port assumes they are named like libbacpy-5.so
> 
> So far, I see no reason not to proceed with my attached diff.  But I 
> welcome different opinions, if they have suggestions for patches.

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to handle this, but I have
forwarded this mail to Olli Hauer (ohauer@) who will hopefully have the
time to take care of it. He has graciously stepped in to pick up the
Bacula related PRs on my plate.

-- WXS


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list