[Samba] RHEL 5 compilation of Samba 3.5.2, termcap library problem, use '--no-as-needed'

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Volker Lendecke
<Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:40:38PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Oguz Yilmaz <oguzyilmazlist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Check for precompiled rpms if it is appropriate for you.
>> >
>> > rpms fr Centos 5 isTested in Centos 5.4
>> >
>> > http://enterprisesamba.com/index.php?id=65
>> > http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/
>> > http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/3.5/centos/5/i386/
>> >
>> > If you need SRPMS check new RHEL 5.5 SRPMS.
>> >
>> > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/
>>
>> Thank you for the pointer: the official RedHat and CentOs RPM's don't
>> go past 3.3.8. The ftp.sernet.de repository has version 3.5.x, but I
>> do not see SRPM's there, nor do I see the stated SRPM from their 'rpm
>> -qi' information listed anywhere in Google, so I don't see access to
>> the relevant SRPM to review it or compare it to my own work. It's
>> unusual to publish an RPM repository without the SRPM's in a related
>> location: who runs that site? where is it a mirror from?
>
> http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/3.5/src/rpm/samba3-3.5.2-43.suse91.src.rpm
>
> Odd name to build on CentOS, but we build all RPMs from a
> single source RPM and pick one to upload.
>
> Volker

Then you're missing a step in your descriptioin. The Samba RPM's claim
that they are built from the SRPM samba3-3.5.2-43.el5.src.rpm, not
that SuSE listed SRPM. If you're using a tool like "mock" to build
from the SuSE SRPM, it's still not the SRPM actually used to build
your binaries: the SRPM used to build the actual binaries is the SRPM
that mock, itself, regenerates and can be found with the binaries in
/var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/results/ or wherever your build tool may
put them.

If this isn't what's happening, then something else fascinating is
going on, and I'd welcome your explanation. I'm sorry if it seems
pesky on my part: I do try to dot my i's and cross my t's about
software source code and build procedures, especially for something so
system-critical as Samba. And I *have* seen smart aleck software
packagers put in '%ifdef and %ifarch statements around source
components of their SRPM's, and even write self-modifying .spec files.
That programmer and I had to have a talk about that little stunt: he
wrote a bit of '%setup" scripting that updated the release number and
built from the new .spec file, but then he got the termination one and
recursed the system into destruction, compiling as root, which I'd
previously explained was a really bad idea.