sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?
- From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
- To: SourceMage Discuss mailing List <SM-Discuss AT Lists.IBiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:07:51 -0500
Kevin Monceaux (Kevin AT RawFedDogs.net) wrote [08.11.04 11:54]:
> The above are defined in libdevmapper.h. It appears that some of the
> #defines from libdevmapper.h are being ignored for some reason. To work
> around the problem I ended up copying:
>
> #define DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_FIELD_NAME_PREFIX 0x00000008
> #define DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_FIELD_UNQUOTED 0x00000010
> #define DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_COLUMNS_AS_ROWS 0x00000020
>
> from libdevmapper.h directly into report.c. Although it achieved a
> successful compile it's far from an ideal solution.
>
> The person who opened the lvm bug says they got the error after installing
> from 0.10.0-test4. My box was also installed from 0.10.0-test4. Is there
> perhaps a subtle problem with the 0.10.0-test4 install that's would cause
> the above.
If the problem is caused by missing definitions in the header file, then
that has nothing to do with the ISO, but with lvm/device-mapper itself.
It sounds like perhaps there was an API change and something is broken
there. Also, as I understand it from the comments against the bug, this
problem seems to only exist in the latest stable-rc, and the known
working versions are being reported for older versions from test
(test-0.25)? Maybe it's a version mismatch between the versions of lvm
and device-mapper?
--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgpKjz37hjB5g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
flux, 11/04/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, Kevin Monceaux, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
George Sherwood, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/05/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Treeve Jelbert, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
Kevin Monceaux, 11/05/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?, George Sherwood, 11/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Subtle header file problem on boxes installed from 0.10.0-test4?,
flux, 11/04/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.