I've reverted back to my *working* automake build :-P

OK so I'm not being mean, I wanted to see if I could figure out any differences.

Looking in /usr/local/lib with the cmake build I'm seeing things like:

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 2013-03-22 13:41 libqpidbroker.so -> libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  8328742 2013-03-22 13:33 libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0


however with the automake build I'm seeing

-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root      1147 2013-03-23 09:15 libqpidbroker.la
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 2013-03-23 09:15 libqpidbroker.so -> libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 2013-03-23 09:15 libqpidbroker.so.2 -> libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root  50660744 2013-03-23 09:15 libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0


This may not be significant especially as the error says "qpidd: error while loading shared libraries: libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory" but the missing libqpidbroker.so.2 is clearly different (I tried chmod +x libqpidbroker.so.2.0.0 BTW but that didn't help). I don't *think* the static library libqpidbroker.la should be making a difference, but who knows.....

thoughts?


Also the qpidd.conf for the 0.20 automake build is the same as the 0.21 cmake build saying "cluster-mechanism=DIGEST-MD5 ANONYMOUS" but the 0.20 version works fine.


As a (probably unrelated :-X ) aside, one thing I've noticed with 0.21 is that there appears to be some changes with persistent store, I noticed something like store.so in /usr/local/lib/qpid/daemon with 0.21. When I commented out the cluster-mechanism line in qpidd.conf I got:
qpidd
2013-03-23 09:06:08 [Store] warning Message store plugin: No storage providers available.
2013-03-23 09:06:08 [Network] notice Listening on TCP/TCP6 port 5672
2013-03-23 09:06:08 [Broker] notice Broker running

So I'm guessing there's a new approach to persistence with qpidd??









---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to