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

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 08:42:09PM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:51:26PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Because if it installs both the client and server portions (like Olli is
> suggesting) we should probably rename it to just "bacula" again. I would
> expect that if I installed a "bacula-server" port that I would get just
> the server portion and no client portion.

For sake of comparison, this isn't how the MySQL port works.  Installing
mysql51-server pulls in mysql51-client.  But installing mysql51-client
doesn't pull in mysql51-server.  I believe there are other ports which
behave the same way as this.

The concept makes sense when you consider that the server is a
centralised piece of software (usually installed on one machine), and
may need to run the client itself (e.g. backup itself).  While other
machines in the cluster are just clients (they get backed up by the
server).

Hope this makes sense.  :-)

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                   jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                       http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |