installation on SuSE 9.1 pro

[lfellows]

Hi,

I am running into serious problems trying to install the Scalix server and software on a SuSE 9.1 system. When I attempt to install using the wizard, it tells me I am apparently using DHCP to get my IP address (I am not), that it cannot determine how much memory I have installed (1 G) and that the dependencies for libdb-4.1.so, liblber.so.2 and libldap.so.2 are not met although my system has highter versions installed. When I tried installing BerkeleyDB4,1 the wizard still failed to detect it. What should I do to get around these problems? This makes trying to evaluate this software impossible at the moment.

Thank you.

lfellows

[ScalixSupport]

Hi,

SuSE 9.1 pro is not a platform we support currently.

The dependencies that are being reported are from RPM and not from the Scalix Wizard. It should also be noted that these are link dependencies and not package dependencies. If you do not have higher major versions of liblber and lbldap, i.e. so.3 instead of so.2, you are not satisfying the dependencies.

The dialog you see regarding the memory is just a warning, you can safely close the dialog down. We have seen this with the 2.6 kernel distributions. The Scalix wizard uses the details from /proc/meminfo and the format of the output changed between 2.4 and 2.6.

The DHCP warning you see indicates that you have BOOTPROTO=dhcp in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 or /etc/sysconfig/network/ifcfg-eth0.

Can I ask how you installed BerkleyDB ? If it was not via RPM, the RPM installation will not be able to determine if the dependency has been satisified.

Cheers

Dave Kelly
Senior Support Engineer
Scalix Corporation

[lfellows]

"SuSE 9.1 pro is not a platform we support currently."

OK. But saw similar errors under 9.0.


"The dependencies that are being reported are from RPM and not from the Scalix Wizard. It should also be noted that these are link dependencies and not package dependencies. If you do not have higher major versions of liblber and lbldap, i.e. so.3 instead of so.2, you are not satisfying the dependencies."

Not sure I agree with you here. If the dependency calls for libwhathaveyou.so.2
and I have libwhathaveyou.so.2.1 then I am certainly meeting the dependency. In each case the lib on my system was higher then the 'required' lib.



"The dialog you see regarding the memory is just a warning, you can safely close the dialog down. We have seen this with the 2.6 kernel distributions. The Scalix wizard uses the details from /proc/meminfo and the format of the output changed between 2.4 and 2.6."


OK.

"The DHCP warning you see indicates that you have BOOTPROTO=dhcp in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 or /etc/sysconfig/network/ifcfg-eth0."

Sorry. No. This is not the situation. The IP is static and BOOTPROTO is set
to 'static'.


"Can I ask how you installed BerkleyDB ?"

From source.

"If it was not via RPM, the RPM installation will not be able to determine if the dependency has been satisified."

Strange. I have not run into this before.



Thank you for your assistance. I will try by ignoring dependencies, which should
work fine according to your explanation.

[ScalixSupport]

"The dependencies that are being reported are from RPM and not from the Scalix Wizard. It should also be noted that these are link dependencies and not package dependencies. If you do not have higher major versions of liblber and lbldap, i.e. so.3 instead of so.2, you are not satisfying the dependencies."

I may have confused the issue with an extraneous "not". I meant that lib.so.3 does not satisfy a link dependency for lib.so.2. Typically, libraries are installed as lib.so.2.1, lib.so.2->lib.so.2.1 and lib.so->lib.so.2.1. This would satisfy the dependency. If there is not lib.so.2, the dependency is not satisfied. Remember that this is RPM we are "battling" with and not the Scalix installation. Link dependencies are inserted automatically when the RPM is built. We have not specified a dependency in the spec file.

Sorry. No. This is not the situation. The IP is static and BOOTPROTO is set
to 'static'.

Do you have BOOTPROTO=dhcp commented out in the file at all ? Please can you post the file so we can run it against the wizard. It's possible that the check is over-zealous.

"SuSE 9.1 pro is not a platform we support currently."

OK. But saw similar errors under 9.0.

This is not something that we have seen when we tested against SuSE 9.0 .

"Can I ask how you installed BerkleyDB ?"

From source.

"If it was not via RPM, the RPM installation will not be able to determine if the dependency has been satisified."

Strange. I have not run into this before.

Can you post the location of libdb-4-1.so ?

Cheers

Dave

[lfellows]

I may have confused the issue with an extraneous "not". I meant that lib.so.3 does not satisfy a link dependency for lib.so.2. Typically, libraries are installed as lib.so.2.1, lib.so.2->lib.so.2.1 and lib.so->lib.so.2.1. This would satisfy the dependency. If there is not lib.so.2, the dependency is not satisfied. Remember that this is RPM we are "battling" with and not the Scalix installation. Link dependencies are inserted automatically when the RPM is built. We have not specified a dependency in the spec file.

OK. That does make sense.

Do you have BOOTPROTO=dhcp commented out in the file at all ? Please can you post the file so we can run it against the wizard. It's possible that the check is over-zealous.

Here you go:
---start--------------
BOOTPROTO='static'
BROADCAST='10.11.255.255'
IPADDR='10.11.6.150'
MTU=''
NETMASK='255.255.0.0'
NETWORK='10.11.0.0'
REMOTE_IPADDR=''
STARTMODE='onboot'
UNIQUE='6Ogo.TB7QihmfYHF'
_nm_name='bus-pci-0000:02:0c.0'
----------end------------------------

This is not something that we have seen when we tested against SuSE 9.0 .

You are correct. I went back to revisit the issues on 9.0 and found that the
library issues were not what had led me to move to the 9.1 platform. My apologies.

Can you post the location of libdb-4-1.so ?

/usr/local/BerkeleyDB4.1/lib/libdb-4.1.so.

[BobMcDowell]

Admittedly not helpful, but I found the evaulation to go much more smoothly with Fedora Core 1 than I did with SUSE (despite the latter being my first choice). If eval is your primary goal, you may consider trying the same. You could always worry about SUSE compatibility when it gets closer to time to purchase.