[Linux-HA] HB2 on RHEL AS4u5 (64-bit) -- trying source install...

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 7/5/07, Dave <davo_muc at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> Pls see my comments/questions below...
>
>
> --- Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/4/07, Dave <davo_muc at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Just as an FYI, for anyone else who is interested...  I found using the Fedora
> > > packages available here (v 2.1.0),
> > > http://software.opensuse.org/download/server:/ha-clustering/
> > > to be problematic getting them installed on RHEL 4.  The reason being that they
> > have
> > > dependencies that are not easily resolved under RHEL 4.
> >
> > more information?
> > i based the dependancies on the ones used by RH to build their
> > heartbeat packages but I'm all ears if you think i've made a
> > mistake...
> >
>
> I'm not saying you necessarily made a mistake.  I just think that I can't expect the
> Fedora RPMs to smoothly install under RHEL.  This seems to be due to the package
> differences between the two release streams (Fedora/RHEL).  For instance,
>
>
> root at mucrrp22:~/2.1.0 > rpm --test -ivh heartbeat-pils-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64.rpm
> warning: heartbeat-pils-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
> 6b9d6523
> error: Failed dependencies:
>         rtld(GNU_HASH) is needed by heartbeat-pils-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64
>
> rtld doesn't seem available for this RHEL release.

cant say i've heard of it, though searching seems to indicate it's
part of glibc or glibc-core...

http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/3/srodzaj/1/search/rtld(GNU_HASH)

>
> root at mucrrp22:/mnt/AS4u5-x86_64/RedHat/RPMS > rpm --test -ivh
> ~/fed5/heartbeat-stonith-2.1.0.40.1.x86_64.rpm
> warning: /home/dsoble/fed5/heartbeat-stonith-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA
> signature: Ny ID 6b9d6523
> error: Failed dependencies:
>         libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) is needed by heartbeat-stonith-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64
>         libnetsnmp.so.10()(64bit) is needed by heartbeat-stonith-2.1.0-40.1.x86_64
>
> These lib versions, libcrypto.so.6 and libnetsnmp.so.10 are newer than what exists
> on RHEL4, and I can't find appropriate packages that would provide these newer
> libraries.
>
> (interesting link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_to_free_or_community_versions
> )

Ok, that link explains a lot... no wonder you're having problems.
Older Fedora versions aren't possible (I asked) as the decision is not
to support versions that have been declared End-of-Life by the vendor.

See: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2007-05/msg00104.html

> Will there be any plans to possibly release RPMs for RHEL in the future???

Unlikely, at least in the short-term (or political reasons as you can
probably imagine)
But as long as the FC version it is based is supported, you'll be able
to use those.

> > > Instead, I had more success using the Centos packages here (v 2.0.8):
> > > http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/x86_64/RPMS/
> > >
> > > The rpm install order went like this:
> > >  heartbeat-pils
> > >  libidn
> > >  curl
> > >  heartbeat-stonith
> > >  lm_sensors
> > >  heartbeat
> > >
> > > This leaves me with a 2.0.8 installation, which might be okay, however, I'm
> > under
> > > the impression that using the later 2.1.0 version would be more stable(?)  To
> > other
> > > HB users feel that 2.1.0 is more stable???
> >
> > don't use 2.0.8 if you have any choice in the matter
> > please read the various emails on the subject
> >
>
>
> Understood.  I downloaded the latest stable source as you suggested, called:
> Heartbeat-Dev-70067cb78a6e.tar.bz2
>
> and after installing all the required build packages, I finally got "ConfigureMe
> configure" to work, but I'm still running into some problems during "make".  Will
> continue to work on resolving those issues...

more info?

> Also, it would be nice to have the GUI as an optional installation component, but
> that's just my opinion.  In our environment, we almost always use servers without
> X11 or graphics at all - just plain old simply, nice, fast, clean command-line ;-)
>
> <short rant re: GUI>
> I understand the (need) desire for graphics on workstations or PCs, but generally, I
> think it's just unnecessary overhead on server machines, or server admin tools (ie.
> harder [or impossible] to script actions, usually has fewer features than the
> command-line, (unless the GUI was developed first), more tricky for remote
> management (ie. can't just use simple ssh), more painful over slow links, etc,
> etc..)
> </rant over>

no argument here... its been many moons since i used the gui
but then again i roll my own packages and disable the gui....

>
> > > Also, is the source for 2.1.0 available?  I was only able to find the source for
> > > 2.0.8 on the HA website.
> >
> > as has been explained many times here on the list, the sources for any
> > version are available from:
> >    http://hg.linux-ha.org/dev/archive/<version>.tar.bz2
> > eg.
> >    http://hg.linux-ha.org/dev/archive/STABLE-2.1.0.tar.bz2
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-HA mailing list
> > Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
> >
>
> Thanks again for your assistance!
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>