[Pacemaker] more package misery

[Johan Verrept]

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:46 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > The distro is non-standard. I don't see how this would be different on
> > OpenSuSE? Do they use untagged (or specifically tagged) versions?
> 
> I just built the lot (same versions as above) on OSX, and its fine here.

Ok... but you said earlier in the thread that the script at your place
also contains an include for a file that no longer exists
(.ocf-shellfuncs). Why is that still there? As far as I can tell, that
is the problem.

When that file does exist (when wrongly installing hb 2.99.2), it causes
a hang because of a circular include.
When that file does not exist, it causes the start scripts to fail
because it misses the file... (if it doesn't do that at your system, why
not?)

It doesn't cause problems here until you actually try to
use /etc/init.d/heartbeat which includes etc/ha.d/shellfuncs which
contains the bad include.

When our boot process starts heartbeat (with /etc/init.d/heartbeat
start), I see this in the logs:

/ub/etc/ha.d/shellfuncs: line
96: /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d//heartbeat/.ocf-shellfuncs: No such file or
directory 

And then our system checks the cluster status with cl_status hbstatus
until it comes up. 20 minutes later it is still checking.
The only difference is switching to the new heartbeat and related
packages.

> I suspect you've got an issue with your build environment.
> Did you try rerunning ./autogen.sh and configure?

These are the steps executed when building the resource agents:

./autogen.sh
./configure --prefix /ub
make 
make install

Every time I build, this is done in a clean unpack from the source
tarballs. 
If you wish, I have complete logs of the build of each package.

> > I would really like to switch to this new package layout now that I am
> > still working on this. It will save me a lot of upgrade work later, so I
> > am prepared to put in a little effort now to get this stable, if this
> > fits with your schedule. How close are you to tagging this?
> 
> They've already been tagged once. But with every hash also being a tag
> of sorts, there's not much need to create extra ones.

True for internal use. As an external user, I find keeping track of the
hashes harder than keeping track of x.y.z. It may be habit though.
Feel free to ignore me :)

	J.