Daniel Bareiro wrote: > Indeed, I'm using CentOS 5.5 amd64. I was not doing the installation > with RPM packages, but compile the source code obtained at the official > site of Bacula. On sunday, doing tests comparing with the installation > done with packages RPM, I realized that the difference was in which the > libraries were in /usr/lib64. >
You may consider rebuilding a Fedora Rawhide source RPM which is supposed to be the latest Bacula source code version, but does include the semantics to make it all work properly in the end -on most Fedora derivative systems. The maximum level of trouble I've ran into is Build Requirements that have differences in their names between the newer Fedora generation and the older more stable Enterprise Linux realm. > Doing again the configuration using this time the --libdir=/usr/lib64 > parameter, the problem was not reproduced. What it is strange to me is > that in an installation of Debian Lenny amd64, I didn't do the > configuration using --libdir=/usr/lib64 and in spite of putting the > libraries in /usr/lib, I did not have the problem occurred in CentOS. > > What can be the difference? > Probably a very liberal /etc/ld.so.conf on Debian, or something like that. -- Jeroen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
