On Monday 25 May 2009 11:31:43 Marco van Wieringen wrote: > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 10:38 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > On Monday 25 May 2009 00:27:23 Arno Lehmann wrote: > > > Hi packagers (Felix in particular :-), > > > > > > I wonder if it's intentional that ACL support is not included in (at > > > least some of) the packages. > > > > > > I have installed bacula-postgresql-3.0.1-1.el5.x86_64.rpm from the > > > sourceforge download page, and found this to not include ACL support. > > > (This is a CentOS 5 system.) Now I'm wondering if this is intentional, > > > and I have to build my own packages, or if this is an oversight, and I > > > will find fresh packages soon? > > > > I suspect that this was not intentional, and was a rather easy oversight > > to make -- probably needing some programming to help packagers. > > On Linux we have a dependancy on additional acl libs so those need to be > on your system when building the bacula sources or it will not be > included. So adding this dependancy also means adding it as a dependancy > to to the rpm build. > > > If I am not mistaken, the ACL support (at least the most recent extended > > stuff) is automatically configured during ./configure based on whether or > > not the appropriate ACL packages have been installed. If they are > > installed on the original build (packager's) machine, then the code will > > be generated. If they are not installed, then no code will be configured > > in Bacula. > > Correct > > > Perhaps what we should do is default to ACL support (this may not be so > > easy), and if the packages are not available the ./configure should fail, > > and the builder would either be required to install the needed libraries > > or explicitly disable ACL support on the ./configure line. > > > > Marco: what do you think about this idea? (I'm not asking for any > > programming right at this point, just trying to decide the best action to > > take). > > Uh I would say we could it a bit different, we check if --enable-acls is > set (so thats different then now) and then complain if things are not > installed. Then we can easily change the configure used in the rpm building > (SPEC file) to include --enable-acl. We could do the same for xattr > support. So we only act when someone explicitly enabled acl and xattr > support.
Yes, I think this would be a very reasonable solution. > > As far as I know its now either enable it when found or disable it when > --disable-acl is given. That is a very reasonable behavior, but in addition, if we *require* it if the user explicitly puts --enable-acls the ./configure should fail if the libraries are not available -- I think that is what you suggested above. Is that something you would like to do, or should I do it? Kern > > Marco > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is > a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet > the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & > iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian > Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
