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 > > > >>>>> p...@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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
