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

Wesley Shields wxs at FreeBSD.org
Wed Sep 22 01:22:24 UTC 2010


On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 06:16:15PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> 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.

I've never liked that, but I can understand it.

> 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.  :-)

It does make sense. I was merely stating my opinion on the matter and if
Dan doesn't like it then I respect that and he should continue to
maintain the port how he chooses.

As I've said before, between Dan and Olli the port is in good hands and
I trust them both to do whatever they think is right.

-- WXS


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list