Installing the bacula pkgs built from *.src.rpm from sourcforge and I hit one dependancy that a quick yummer won't solve.
It says libc5 is required but I can't find anything that provides libc5. I thought maybe a compat package, but running a whatprovides against the database rpmdb-fedora-3-0.20040803:
Gets no hits: rpm --redhatprovides libc5 no package provides libc5
Any clues what will fix this?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:23:21AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Installing the bacula pkgs built from *.src.rpm from sourcforge and I hit one dependancy that a quick yummer won't solve.
It says libc5 is required but I can't find anything that provides libc5.
Are you sure that you build that from sources? It is hard to imagine how you could get such dependency that way unless that "source" actually includes some binary blobs. Otherwise this dependency is bogus (very old specs?).
Any clues what will fix this?
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=libc5
lists at least one such package. You will need also 'ld.so' (probably 'ld.so-1.9.5' or something like that). You actually have a pretty good chance that this will work on your test installation although it will take an extra memory. If you truly need libc5 this is an archeological computing. It would be interesting to know results. :-)
Michal
Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com writes:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:23:21AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Installing the bacula pkgs built from *.src.rpm from sourcforge and I hit one dependancy that a quick yummer won't solve.
It says libc5 is required but I can't find anything that provides libc5.
Are you sure that you build that from sources? It is hard to imagine how you could get such dependency that way unless that "source" actually includes some binary blobs. Otherwise this dependency is bogus (very old specs?).
No not from `source' but as I said from `*.src.rpm.'
The ones on sourceforge. bacula-1.34.6-1.src.rpm at: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=50727
truly need libc5 this is an archeological computing. It would be interesting to know results. :-)
Do you think I could just remove that requires... I don't really know how but if I follow along the .spec I guess it will be apparent somewhere.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:05:16PM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com writes:
Are you sure that you build that from sources?
No not from `source' but as I said from `*.src.rpm.'
Eh? Could you explain that subtle difference? This is akin to saying "No, I did not build that from sources. I used 'source.tar.gz' for that." I have to admit that it escapes me why differences in packaging are important for you. Would be that opposite if you got that as .deb?
Do you think I could just remove that requires...
I have no idea. I have not a clue why and how it got there. If somebody just listed it under 'Requires:' tag and it still compiles on FC then yes, you indeed can and should.
Michal
Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com writes:
Are you sure that you build that from sources?
No not from `source' but as I said from `*.src.rpm.'
Eh? Could you explain that subtle difference? This is akin to saying "No, I did not build that from sources. I used 'source.tar.gz' for that." I have to admit that it escapes me why differences in packaging are important for you. Would be that opposite if you got that as .deb?
Not sure what yor are talking about there...
My response wasn't supposed to be weird or a wise crack or etc. When you said `>> > Are you sure that you build that from sources?'
I thought you must be asking if I had built it like ./configure make make install
Where I might have used some tricky variables or whatever.
I was simply saying I built it with rpmbuild -ba .spec from the *.src.file so using whatever is in .spec.
Probably should have used the word `rebuilt'
Do you think I could just remove that requires...
I have no idea. I have not a clue why and how it got there. If somebody just listed it under 'Requires:' tag and it still compiles on FC then yes, you indeed can and should.
It just appears like: Requires: coreutils, util-linux, libc5, bacula-fd Any way removing it allows the packages produced to install ok.
I don't really know how to use it yet so not really sure its working.
There is one thing else that strikes me as wrong or odd.
rpmbuild -ba .spec built these: bacula-client-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm bacula-mysql-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm bacula-debuginfo-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm bacula-rescue-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm bacula-gconsole-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm bacula-updatedb-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm
Subtracting the debug pkg. And all but one installs with no problems. bacula-client-1.34.6-1.i386.rpm produces this error:
rpm -Uvh bacula-client-1.34.6-1.i38 6.rpm error: Failed dependencies: bacula-client conflicts with bacula-mysql-1.34.6-1
I don't get that, but maybe its because I don't understand how to use it yet. Maybe the client package is meant to be installed elsewhere.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:20:26PM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com writes:
Are you sure that you build that from sources?
No not from `source' but as I said from `*.src.rpm.'
Eh? Could you explain that subtle difference?
My response wasn't supposed to be weird or a wise crack or etc. When you said `>> > Are you sure that you build that from sources?'
I thought you must be asking if I had built it like ./configure make make install
So if a driver script in a form of a spec file does that, or something similar, for you (among various other things, of course) this is an earth shattering difference? Well ..., ok.
If you would do 'rpmbuild -ta some_source.tar.gz' would be that compiling from sources or not? Yes, you can do that if tar.gz archive has inside a correct spec file.
The real question was were you linking, directly or indirectly, with libc5 libraries. It looks from your description that this did not happen.
rpm -Uvh bacula-client-1.34.6-1.i38 6.rpm error: Failed dependencies: bacula-client conflicts with bacula-mysql-1.34.6-1
Well, apparently you can have one or another. Quite possibly they do the same thing by slightly different means. There are probably some docs which come with all that stuff. But if its spec file still references libc5 that would indicate that this project was abandoned many years ago (which does not mean that the program is necessarily not working).
Michal
Michal Jaegermann michal@harddata.com writes:
So if a driver script in a form of a spec file does that, or something similar, for you (among various other things, of course) this is an earth shattering difference? Well ..., ok.
Not sure why you're having such a time with this. It seems self evident to me that a build controled by me with basic build tools is something different than what some else put in an rpm spec file. Fisr off... mine is likely to be very amatuerish.
Thanks for your priceless input on this. It really bailed me out today ... I .. I feel all clean and new... or something. And if they ever organize a hall a fame for helpfull posters I'm nominating you. .. Nope don't try to stop me... you really deserve it.