#1980 PR merged: Fix for #1974 - NBU (Netbackup) not working since ReaR 2.4¶
Labels: enhancement, bug, fixed / solved / done
rmetrich opened issue at 2018-11-26 08:21:¶
Relax-and-Recover (ReaR) Pull Request Template¶
Please fill in the following items before submitting a new pull request:
Pull Request Details:¶
-
Type: Bug Fix + Enhancement
-
Impact: Normal
-
Reference to related issue (URL): #1974
-
How was this pull request tested? Tested by a Red Hat customer on rear-2.4.2
-
Brief description of the changes in this pull request:
With ReaR 2.4, a verification of the binaries included in the ISO is
performed. When using COPY_AS_IS with NetBackup, too many binaries
were
included, causing the verification to fail or print error messages.
This fix defines a new NBU_LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable used during
verification and also excludes unused NetBackup binaries from the
ISO.
Additionally, the RequiredSharedObjects() function has been fixed to
not
list the left part of the ldd mapping when there is a right part: some
NetBackup libraries (e.g. /usr/openv/lib/libbpfsmap.so) were having
a
mapping such as /lib/ld64.so => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, causing
the RequiredSharedObjects() function to print /lib/ld64.so which
doesn't resolve at all.
jsmeix commented at 2018-11-26 09:44:¶
@rmetrich
thank you for finding and fixing such special cases where
the RequiredSharedObjects() function did not yet work properly.
Do you perhaps know a standard executable as an example where 'ldd'
reports
/path/to/lib1 => /path/to/lib2 ...
so that I could add it to the comment of the RequiredSharedObjects()
function?
rmetrich commented at 2018-11-26 09:59:¶
@jsmeix Sorry, no idea for such standard library. It's probably a broken way of building NetBackup. Will try to find out how this can happen.
rmetrich commented at 2018-11-26 10:01:¶
@gdha please note the code has been fixed on RHEL's rear which is a bit older. I saw there were fixes in Verification now so that COPY_AS_IS issues only appear as non fatal errors now and RHEL 7.6 doesn't has that code.
gdha commented at 2018-11-26 10:23:¶
@rmetrich Now I'm confused - is the PR for the master branch OK to merge or not?
rmetrich commented at 2018-11-26 10:26:¶
@gdha It should be ready to merge, but this was not effectively tested by my customer, only the rear-2.4-2 from RHEL7.6, where verification failed due to broken binaries.
[Export of Github issue for rear/rear.]