Summary: build: Move libopensaf_core back to libdir and update README [#2298]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 2298
Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): default(5.2)
Development branch: default
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system y
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services n
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples y
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 12524f90cbc18b0e8cda7ddbb93fe8d28b1244bf
Author: Anders Widell <anders.wid...@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:02:35 +0100
build: Move libopensaf_core back to libdir and update README [#2298]
An application binary linked with the OpenSAF AIS libraries may fail to
load
after upgrading to OpenSAF 5.2. The reason is that libopensaf_core.so.0
has
moved from /usr/local/lib to /usr/local/lib/opensaf. This problem can
happen
if the following two conditions are met:
* The application was linked without using the -Wl,--as-needed option
(and
this option is not enabled by default by the Linux distribution used
when
building the application binary)
* The directory /usr/local/lib/opensaf is not listed in LD_LIBRARY_PATH
or
/etc/ld.so.conf
This is fixed by:
* Moving libopensaf_core back to /usr/local/lib
* Updating the documentation to mention that -Wl,--as-needed must to be
used
when linking with the OpenSAF libraries, to avoid similar problems in
the
future.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
Makefile.am | 3 ++-
README | 12 ++++++++++--
opensaf.spec.in | 2 +-
samples/Makefile.common | 1 +
src/base/Makefile.am | 3 ++-
tools/cluster_sim_uml/build_uml | 4 ++--
6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Link an application with an old version of OpenSAF. Run it with a new version
of OpenSAF.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Application shall run successfully with the new version of OpenSAF.
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from reviwer(s)
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
