[Box Backup] Solaris again (was Re: 0.08PLUS1)

Ben Summers boxbackup@fluffy.co.uk
Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:26:48 +0000

On 17 Nov 2004, at 19:41, Martin Ebourne wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 18:21, Ben Summers wrote:
>> I'll track that down. Obviously something weird is going on with the
>> LFS support. Linux is nothing but "entertaining".
> It's all gone a bit hectic here otherwise I'd have looked into that.

I've got it sorted now, I think.

> As to Linux causing all this trouble, really the differences you are
> seeing are between SysV and BSD. Linux runs a middleground between the
> two, but it does seem rather more SysV biased than BSD.
> For Solaris I've had to enable all of the Linux 'hacks' because they 
> are
> actually the SysV way of doing things. In addition I've had to add a 
> few
> more because Solaris is true SysV without compromises. Although it 
> would
> be nice to think that BSD is the 'one true way', I'm not sure it's
> really defensible. ;)

Ah well. It was written for the BSD world, so I suppose there's a bias 
there. My objection to Linux is not that it's different to BSD, but 
that it's different to itself. Every single installation appears to be 
subtly different for no good reason apart from "preference". But you 
have to live with it.

> Coming back to the unfinished Solaris port your last clue was spot on
> and fixed the test failures I was stuck on. It went straight on to the
> next one but I've not had time to investigate. From memory it's failing
> on one or more of these lines:
>                 TEST_THAT(before.deleted != 0);
> in testbackupstore.cpp. Any clues?

In the test, it runs the client to put some data on the server, and 
then checks to see how much data is there. Check the previous activity 
(ExtendedLogging is enabled) to see what it actually did.