#2110 PR `closed`: let each ldd output line match only once¶

Labels: bug, won't fix / can't fix / obsolete

jgrumboe opened issue at 2019-04-08 10:05:¶

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 / New Feature / Enhancement / Other?
Bug Fix
Impact: Low / Normal / High / Critical / Urgent
Normal
Reference to related issue (URL):
https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2109
How was this pull request tested?
locally on my system
Brief description of the changes in this pull request:
This change lets ldd output lines match only once in the awk statement.
So it prohibits "wrong" double matches.

rmetrich commented at 2019-04-08 12:02:¶

Looks ok to me. Any example of why it would be wrong to print multiple lines?

jgrumboe commented at 2019-04-08 12:10:¶

@rmetrich The "problem" is that in this case with Dynatrace the loaded library has "/$LIB/" in the name and, as far as i know, the actual full-path of the lib is evaluated during runtime of the process.
As described in the referenced issue #2109 it gives stderr messages, which somehow are false-positive.
In the Dynatrace example the /lib64/liboneagentproc.so is already loaded so "/$LIB/liboneagentproc.so" is not needed anymore.

I hope my answer makes sense and i didn't mix it up to much while translating my thoughts into english ;)

jgrumboe commented at 2019-04-08 12:44:¶

Regarding my issue comment (https://github.com/rear/rear/issues/2109#issuecomment-480815587) this PR would be obsolet or let's say "cosmetic", if you still want to merge it.
Thanks for pointing me to #1980.

jsmeix commented at 2019-04-09 09:08:¶

@rmetrich
since https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/2110#issuecomment-480816157
my gut feeling tells me it would be better to not merge it,
I guess my gut feeling is "never change code that works".

jsmeix commented at 2019-04-09 09:11:¶

FYI: I found out how one can un-approve a pull request:
It does not work to do another review where one selects only "comment"
but it works to re-request oneself to do a review.

jsmeix commented at 2019-04-09 09:13:¶

@rmetrich
I assigned it to you so that you can decide whether or not to merge it.

jgrumboe commented at 2019-04-09 13:13:¶

I'll be happy if you merge it, but i would also understand when this is rejected because of "never change code that works" - no problem for me. :)

gdha commented at 2019-04-17 10:06:¶

@rmetrich What do you think about this PR - accept or reject?

rmetrich commented at 2019-04-17 11:48:¶

I'm ok as long as it still works. Could a test be made with NBU?

Renaud.

Out of the office / Sent from my phone.

Le mer. 17 avr. 2019 12:07, gdha notifications@github.com a écrit :

@rmetrich https://github.com/rmetrich What do you think about this PR -
accept or reject?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/rear/rear/pull/2110#issuecomment-484021919, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHBcyD-1R1Twvial0qw3qe4odZiEHqVks5vhvJFgaJpZM4chyZ8
.

gdha commented at 2019-04-17 11:56:¶

@jgrumboe I assume you were hitting this issue when using TSM as external backup solution?

jgrumboe commented at 2019-04-17 12:51:¶

@gdha "Maybe". Yes, we do have TSM as external backup solution and No, i don't think it's TSM related. The function to scan loaded libs is general I think.

Update: Now i get it, because of the previous comment regarding testing with NBU. (facepalm) Sorry, can't help with that and Yes, we have TSM :)