Running master/Samba3 fails because of system talloc

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 09:07 -0400, simo wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:51 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > I've just built Samba3 from master, and have found that, because I have
> > > libtalloc on my system, it prefers to link against this (and fail to
> > > run), than to use the copy Samba3 built.
> > >
> > > bin/smbclient
> > > bin/smbclient: symbol lookup error: bin/smbclient: undefined symbol:
> > > _talloc_get_type_abort
> > >
> > > This is because I have: libtalloc-1.2.0 installed on my Fedora 10
> > > system.
> > >
> > > I realise this is because I've not yet installed Samba3 (I am running
> > > from the checkout), and even if I had installed it, I would not have yet
> > > updated my ld.so.conf manually to point to Samba3's directory, or set
> > > LD_LIBRARY_PATH (annoying, but possible). 
> > >
> > > However, this isn't the whole problem - what would have happened if we
> > > had changed the ABI more abruptly:  Not just adding a new symbol, but
> > > changing a prototype?  As far as I can see, the only indication would
> > > have been a segfault, not a linker failure.  
> > >
> > > Also, if I did update my ld.so.conf, how should the rest of the system
> > > react (I presume 'something' stops the newer version being a problem for
> > > the other OS applications that required libtalloc in the first place)?
> > >
> > > Should symbol versions play some role here?
> > >
> > > Samba4 currently builds and runs fine for me, because when it fails to
> > > link against system libraries, a static copy is used.  Why (in all
> > > seriousness, I would like to understand the reason) does Samba3 not use
> > > this approach?  
> > >
> > > Could Samba3 adopt the Samba4 approach, which has worked pretty well for
> > > quite a while now?  Alternately, could this approach be used at least
> > > when the install directory is not in ld.so.conf?  
> > >
> > > Finally, I do think we need to agree on a common strategy for these
> > > situations for both trees in the master branch.  We can't continue to
> > > merge development efforts while having two very different expected
> > > behaviours here.  
> > >
> > > As long as all the problems are addressed, I'm not particularly fixed on
> > > what scheme is used, as long as it is consistent across all our
> > > development efforts, and is consistent with producing and being
> > > compatible with what final packaged systems require.
> > I had this issue a week or so ago as well, and it turned out to be 
> > caused by the fact that -L/usr/lib ends up in my LDFLAGS, thus causing 
> > the system talloc to be found before the one in bin/, even if configure 
> > has decided not to use the system talloc. Are you perhaps hitting a 
> > similar issue?
> > 
> > fwiw, configure will already only use the system talloc if it is 1.3 or 
> > higher.
> 
> The problem is in trying to building talloc as a .so when a different
> version is found on the system. Not going to work.

So, how do I proceed?  I can't get Samba3 to build by any of the
different sets of flags I've tried.  Simo:  How do you build Samba3 on
your Fedora systems?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20090325/bf228ae6/attachment.bin