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: Kevin Monceaux <Kevin AT RawFedDogs.net>
- To: Source Mage 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 12:11:43 -0600 (CST)
Justin,
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, flux wrote:
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.
I know, I'm grasping at straws and am probably seeing similarities between the symptoms that don't really exist.
It's report.c that's complaining about DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_FIELD_NAME_PREFIX, DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_FIELD_UNQUOTED, and DM_REPORT_OUTPUT_COLUMNS_AS_ROWS being undefined. report.c has:
#include "lib.h"
And, lib.h has:
#include <libdevmapper.h>
And, the libdevmapper.h on my box has #defines for the above.
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?
I had the same failure with the version of lvm that's in the current stable, 0.26-1. I installed from 0.10.0-test4 and lvm failed on the initial sorcery rebuild.
Kevin
http://www.RawFedDogs.net
http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org
Bruceville, TX
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!
-
[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.