Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge svrcore to ds base #2428

Closed
389-ds-bot opened this issue Sep 13, 2020 · 18 comments
Closed

Merge svrcore to ds base #2428

389-ds-bot opened this issue Sep 13, 2020 · 18 comments
Labels
closed: fixed Migration flag - Issue
Milestone

Comments

@389-ds-bot
Copy link

Cloned from Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49369


Issue Description

We are now the only consumer of the svrcore project. To simplify our build and source trees, we should roll this into the ds source tree.

We can continue to produce a seperate svrcore rpm from this, but just built from the ds source tree.

Likely we would ship 389-ds-svrcore which obsoletes the svrcore rpms set.

@389-ds-bot 389-ds-bot added the closed: fixed Migration flag - Issue label Sep 13, 2020
@389-ds-bot 389-ds-bot added this to the 1.4 backlog milestone Sep 13, 2020
@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2017-08-31 01:54:41

Metadata Update from @Firstyear:

  • Custom field component adjusted to None
  • Custom field origin adjusted to None
  • Custom field reviewstatus adjusted to None
  • Custom field type adjusted to None
  • Custom field version adjusted to None
  • Issue set to the milestone: 1.4 backlog

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

389-ds-bot commented Sep 13, 2020

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2018-02-28 00:02:24

#2648

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2018-02-28 00:02:25

Metadata Update from @Firstyear:

  • Custom field reviewstatus adjusted to review (was: None)

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-03-20 20:50:16

The Makefile changes merged from the PR are breaking the builds on F28.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2018-03-20 23:42:20

@kenoh Said he wainted to look at this (there is another ticket open), but if this is urgent I can look today.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-03-21 13:07:19

I need to a upstream build of 1.4.0 soon, so this should get fixed by the end of next week.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-05 20:25:13

Still having a lot of problems around this. I know we need to add the following code

makefile.am
@@ -1165,6 +1165,7 @@ libsvrcore_la_SOURCES = \

 libsvrcore_la_LDFLAGS = $(AM_LDFLAGS)
 libsvrcore_la_CPPFLAGS = $(AM_CPPFLAGS) $(SVRCORE_INCLUDES) $(DSPLUGIN_CPPFLAGS)
+libsvrcore_la_LIBADD = $(NSS_LINK) $(NSPR_LINK) 

Even with this we can not build DS upstream do to complaints about libldaputil.la not being found. So right now we can not build master branch on F28 or F29, but I guess that's another issue

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-05 20:25:24

Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:

  • Issue assigned to kenoh

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

389-ds-bot commented Sep 13, 2020

Comment from mhonek (@kenoh) at 2018-04-09 16:16:54

As per #2611#comment-504253 building on F28+ works. Also, the actual svrcore seems to work just fine. Closing as fixed.

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mhonek (@kenoh) at 2018-04-09 16:16:54

Metadata Update from @kenoh:

  • Issue close_status updated to: fixed
  • Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2018-04-10 07:13:17

Great, thank you @kenoh Sorry to cause so much grief :(

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-13 19:04:35

Reopening, looks like there are rpm issues on F28

results:

  • arch: x86_64
    checkname: dist.rpmdeplint
    item: 389-ds-base-1.4.0.7-1.fc28
    outcome: FAILED
    scenario: x86_64
    type: koji_build

package 389-ds-base-devel-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.

This needs to be investigated...

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-13 19:04:35

Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:

  • Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-13 19:57:27

Upgrades also do not work:

root@hp-dl360g5-01 rpms]# rpm -iUvh *
error: Failed dependencies:
svrcore conflicts with 389-ds-base-devel-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.x86_64
svrcore = 4.1.3-4.fc28 is needed by (installed) svrcore-devel-4.1.3-4.fc28.x86_64
svrcore conflicts with 389-ds-base-libs-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.x86_64
krb5-server is needed by python3-lib389-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.noarch
krb5-workstation is needed by python3-lib389-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.noarch
python3-pytest is needed by python3-lib389-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.noarch
Updating / installing...
1:389-ds-base-1.4.0.7-1.fc28 ################################# [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed: cpio: Archive file not in header
error: 389-ds-base-1.4.0.7-1.fc28.src.rpm cannot be installed

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-04-16 15:31:23

Got it working, just need to run some lib389 tests before sending out for review...

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mhonek (@kenoh) at 2018-05-11 16:37:02

@mreynolds389 Seems everything is running smoothly now regarding the merged svrcore. Are we good to close this issue?

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-05-11 16:38:29

Yes, closing it out...

@389-ds-bot
Copy link
Author

Comment from mreynolds (@mreynolds389) at 2018-05-11 16:38:31

Metadata Update from @mreynolds389:

  • Issue close_status updated to: fixed
  • Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
closed: fixed Migration flag - Issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant