Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[Samba] Error
31 views
Skip to first unread message
sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu
Oct 23, 2012, 5:30:02 PM10/23/12
to
hello list when I run the step make for update my samba4 I have the follow
warning
warning: The current binary is a PIE (Position Independent Executable), which
GDB does NOT currently support. Most debugger features will fail if used
in this session.
libndr.so: symbol ndr_transfer_syntax_ndr64 has changed - please update
major version
old_signature: uuid = {time_low = 1903232307, time_mid = 48826,
time_hi_and_version = 18743, clock_seq = "\203\031", node =
"\265\333\357\234\314\066"}, if_version = 1
new_signature: uuid = {time_low = 1903232307, time_mid = 48826,
time_hi_and_version = 18743, clock_seq = "\203\031", node =
"���\234�6"}, if_version = 1
libndr.so: symbol ndr_transfer_syntax_ndr has changed - please update
major version
old_signature: uuid = {time_low = 2324192516, time_mid = 7403,
time_hi_and_version = 4553, clock_seq = "\237\350", node =
"\b\000+\020H`"}, if_version = 2
new_signature: uuid = {time_low = 2324192516, time_mid = 7403,
time_hi_and_version = 4553, clock_seq = "\237�", node =
"\b\000+\020H`"}, if_version = 2
Waf: Leaving directory `/media/samba-master/bin'
Build failed: ABI for libndr.so has changed - please fix library version
then build with --abi-update
See http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Waf#ABI_Checking for more information
If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
make: *** [all] Error 1
root@capital:/media/samba-master#
some idea?????
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
warning
warning: The current binary is a PIE (Position Independent Executable), which
GDB does NOT currently support. Most debugger features will fail if used
in this session.
libndr.so: symbol ndr_transfer_syntax_ndr64 has changed - please update
major version
old_signature: uuid = {time_low = 1903232307, time_mid = 48826,
time_hi_and_version = 18743, clock_seq = "\203\031", node =
"\265\333\357\234\314\066"}, if_version = 1
new_signature: uuid = {time_low = 1903232307, time_mid = 48826,
time_hi_and_version = 18743, clock_seq = "\203\031", node =
"���\234�6"}, if_version = 1
libndr.so: symbol ndr_transfer_syntax_ndr has changed - please update
major version
old_signature: uuid = {time_low = 2324192516, time_mid = 7403,
time_hi_and_version = 4553, clock_seq = "\237\350", node =
"\b\000+\020H`"}, if_version = 2
new_signature: uuid = {time_low = 2324192516, time_mid = 7403,
time_hi_and_version = 4553, clock_seq = "\237�", node =
"\b\000+\020H`"}, if_version = 2
Waf: Leaving directory `/media/samba-master/bin'
Build failed: ABI for libndr.so has changed - please fix library version
then build with --abi-update
See http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Waf#ABI_Checking for more information
If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
make: *** [all] Error 1
root@capital:/media/samba-master#
some idea?????
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Andrew Bartlett
Oct 24, 2012, 4:10:02 AM10/24/12
to
> If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Michael Wood
Oct 24, 2012, 5:10:01 AM10/24/12
to
Hi Andrew
On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
[...]
that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
e.g.:
Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> See this line:
>
> > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
>
> > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
e.g.:
Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
Andrew Bartlett
Oct 24, 2012, 5:10:02 AM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> [...]
> > See this line:
> >
> > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
>
> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>
> e.g.:
>
> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
It already only happens with ./configure.developer or --enable-developer
> Hi Andrew
>
> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> [...]
> > See this line:
> >
> > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
>
> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>
> e.g.:
>
> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
What we probably need to do is stop suggesting that option.
Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
steve
Oct 24, 2012, 6:00:02 AM10/24/12
to
On 24/10/12 11:00, Michael Wood wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
>
> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>
> e.g.:
>
> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
Hi Michael, Andrew, Sandy, everyone.
> Hi Andrew
>
> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
>
> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>
> e.g.:
>
> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
It's difficult for users to know what to ask when they have a problem.
Perhaps it's easy for those who have worked with the code for the last
10 years or so, but for end users we just want plain English answers
such as Michael suggests.
It took me a long time to even think about joining samba-technical
because I didn't want to interfere with something I know nothing about,
viz coding.
Would it be possible that replies to _this_ list assume no high level
knowledge? Just say it. As in Michael's example, a reply of:
<example reply>
Try this:
rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option
To do that, you need to type this:
./configure.developer --abi-check-disable
</example reply>
That's all it needs.
For the devs it's easy. You know what he has to do. So why be so
cryptic? Just tell him. We'll give you all you need. We'll test, break
our systems, apply patches. . . anything we can do to help.
Also, please don't forget that some of us are not native speakers of
English. Much of what is written here I have to translate for my work
colleagues. ¡Que sea que me lo haga fácil!
Saludos,
Steve
Andrew Bartlett
Oct 24, 2012, 7:20:01 AM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 20:05 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> > [...]
> > > See this line:
> > >
> > > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
> >
> > Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> > that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
> >
> > e.g.:
> >
> > Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> > Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> > you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
> It already only happens with ./configure.developer or --enable-developer
>
> What we probably need to do is stop suggesting that option.
I've corrected this in the HOWTO, which should (eventually) help.
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> > [...]
> > > See this line:
> > >
> > > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
> >
> > Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> > that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
> >
> > e.g.:
> >
> > Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> > Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> > you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
> It already only happens with ./configure.developer or --enable-developer
>
> What we probably need to do is stop suggesting that option.
Michael Wood
Oct 24, 2012, 8:10:02 AM10/24/12
to
On 24 October 2012 13:11, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 20:05 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew
> > >
> > > On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > See this line:
> > > >
> > > > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
> > >
> > > Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> > > that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
> > >
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > > Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> > > Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> > > you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
> >
> > It already only happens with ./configure.developer or --enable-developer
> >
> > What we probably need to do is stop suggesting that option.
>
> I've corrected this in the HOWTO, which should (eventually) help.
Seems like a reasonable solution to me :)
>
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 20:05 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 11:00 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew
> > >
> > > On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > See this line:
> > > >
> > > > > If you have not changed any ABI, and your platform always gives this
> > > > > error, please configure with --abi-check-disable to skip this check
> > >
> > > Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
> > > that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
> > >
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > > Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
> > > Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
> > > you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
> >
> > It already only happens with ./configure.developer or --enable-developer
> >
> > What we probably need to do is stop suggesting that option.
>
> I've corrected this in the HOWTO, which should (eventually) help.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
Michael Wood
Oct 24, 2012, 8:20:02 AM10/24/12
to
Hi Steve
On 24 October 2012 12:00, steve <st...@steve-ss.com> wrote:
> On 24/10/12 11:00, Michael Wood wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
>>
>> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
>> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>>
>> e.g.:
>>
>> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
>> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
>> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
> Hi Michael, Andrew, Sandy, everyone.
> It's difficult for users to know what to ask when they have a problem.
> Perhaps it's easy for those who have worked with the code for the last 10
> years or so, but for end users we just want plain English answers such as
> Michael suggests.
What Andrew is saying is that the end-user should never even get the
error in the first place, let alone be confused by it.
This only came up because the HOWTO recommended using
./configure.developer. Andrew has now changed the HOWTO to recommend
"./configure --enable-debug --enable-selftest".
That will apparently cause the ABI checks to be skipped, so the user
will not see these errors.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
On 24 October 2012 12:00, steve <st...@steve-ss.com> wrote:
> On 24/10/12 11:00, Michael Wood wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 10:06, Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 18:16 -0400, sandy....@eccmg.cupet.cu wrote:
>>
>> Since an end-user is unlikely to have changed the ABI or know what
>> that means, perhaps that message would make more sense if reworded?
>>
>> e.g.:
>>
>> Please report this error to ... along with the version of your OS and
>> Samba (and gdb or whatever else you need to know). In the mean time,
>> you can rerun configure with the --abi-check-disable option.
>
> Hi Michael, Andrew, Sandy, everyone.
> It's difficult for users to know what to ask when they have a problem.
> Perhaps it's easy for those who have worked with the code for the last 10
> years or so, but for end users we just want plain English answers such as
> Michael suggests.
error in the first place, let alone be confused by it.
This only came up because the HOWTO recommended using
./configure.developer. Andrew has now changed the HOWTO to recommend
"./configure --enable-debug --enable-selftest".
That will apparently cause the ABI checks to be skipped, so the user
will not see these errors.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
steve
Oct 24, 2012, 10:50:02 AM10/24/12
to
On 24/10/12 14:11, Michael Wood wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> O
The HOWTO also recommends installation from the 4.1 master branch. Upon
your tip, I switched to v4-0-test. Could it be that all the
sysvol/dns/gpo problems we see here come from the bleeding edge? Would
it perhaps be better to recommend new users to a rc tarball or for the
more adventurous the 4.0 test branch and leave master for the developers?
Cheers,
Steve
> Hi Steve
>
> O
>
> This only came up because the HOWTO recommended using
> ./configure.developer.
Hi Michael.
> This only came up because the HOWTO recommended using
> ./configure.developer.
The HOWTO also recommends installation from the 4.1 master branch. Upon
your tip, I switched to v4-0-test. Could it be that all the
sysvol/dns/gpo problems we see here come from the bleeding edge? Would
it perhaps be better to recommend new users to a rc tarball or for the
more adventurous the 4.0 test branch and leave master for the developers?
Cheers,
Steve
Michael Wood
Oct 24, 2012, 11:30:01 AM10/24/12
to
Hi Steve
On 24 October 2012 16:48, steve <st...@steve-ss.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael.
> The HOWTO also recommends installation from the 4.1 master branch. Upon your
> tip, I switched to v4-0-test. Could it be that all the sysvol/dns/gpo
> problems we see here come from the bleeding edge?
I doubt that. I think the master branch is pretty similar to the
v4-0-test branch at the moment.
> Would it perhaps be better
> to recommend new users to a rc tarball or for the more adventurous the 4.0
> test branch and leave master for the developers?
I did wonder that myself. I'm not sure.
If someone runs into a problem and a developer sends them a patch, the
patch will likely be for the master branch, so may or may not apply
cleanly to the v4-0-test branch.
However, a user can always switch to master, test that, apply the
patch and test again if necessary, I suppose.
I would have thought it might make sense for users to stick with the
RC tarballs until they run into a problem. At that point they could
get hold of master and apply any relevant patches to see if their
problem is fixed. This way, at least users would be testing a stable
version instead of a moving target (until they switched to master in
order to apply the patch).
They could even checkout the relevant RC tag instead of getting the
tarball to keep everything in git. But that might cause too much
confusion.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
On 24 October 2012 16:48, steve <st...@steve-ss.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael.
> The HOWTO also recommends installation from the 4.1 master branch. Upon your
> tip, I switched to v4-0-test. Could it be that all the sysvol/dns/gpo
> problems we see here come from the bleeding edge?
v4-0-test branch at the moment.
> Would it perhaps be better
> to recommend new users to a rc tarball or for the more adventurous the 4.0
> test branch and leave master for the developers?
If someone runs into a problem and a developer sends them a patch, the
patch will likely be for the master branch, so may or may not apply
cleanly to the v4-0-test branch.
However, a user can always switch to master, test that, apply the
patch and test again if necessary, I suppose.
I would have thought it might make sense for users to stick with the
RC tarballs until they run into a problem. At that point they could
get hold of master and apply any relevant patches to see if their
problem is fixed. This way, at least users would be testing a stable
version instead of a moving target (until they switched to master in
order to apply the patch).
They could even checkout the relevant RC tag instead of getting the
tarball to keep everything in git. But that might cause too much
confusion.
--
Michael Wood <esio...@gmail.com>
0 new messages