0001356: packetfence 3.1 fails to start from RPM install - PacketFence

Bug Tracking System

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ]

[ Issue History ] [ Print ]

Project

Category

View Status

Date Submitted

Last Update

0001356

PacketFence

core

public

2012-01-05 09:24

2012-06-14 12:21

Reporter

maikel

Assigned To

obilodeau

Priority

normal

Severity

minor

Reproducibility

always

Status

closed

Resolution

no change required

Platform

OS Version

Product Version

3.1.0

Target Version

Fixed in Version

Summary

0001356: packetfence 3.1 fails to start from RPM install

Description

Use of uninitialized value $captive_portal[0] in pattern match (m//) at
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/pfcmd/checkup.pm line 734 (0000001)

Additional Information

Seems 3.1 rpm install on Centos 6 doesnt have patch yet availabe in the trunk

around line 734 in new code is:

# Apache PerlPostConfigRequire scripts *must* compile otherwise apache startup silently fails
    my @captive_portal = pf_run("perl -c $lib_dir/pf/web/captiveportal_modperl_require.pl 2>&1");
    if ($captive_portal[0] !~ /syntax OK$/) {
        add_problem(
            $FATAL, "Apache will fail to start! $lib_dir/pf/web/captiveportal_modperl_require.pl doesn't compile"
        );

my $captive_portal is on 3.1 after the if statement in 3.2 its as listed above

Tags

No tags attached.

fixed in git revision

fixed in mtn revision

Attached Files

Relationships

Notes
(0002515) obilodeau (reporter) 2012-01-05 19:51	I just double-checked the code repository and I don't see why you have a difference between 3.1 (trunk 2 weeks ago) and 3.2 (trunk built every night) there were no changes in the lib/pf/pfcmd/checkup.pm file since 3.1 release (last change is dec 14th before 3.1 was released). Can you post both files? Maybe there's a build issue with CentOS 6 although I would have expected our last deployments to highlight it.

(0002518) maikel (reporter) 2012-01-06 13:50	I see it to. Strange, it might have been the new Centos 6.2 release An intern here installed it and i saw that difference after the groupinstall Currently that system is down. I can confirm the bug monday if it still exists. else close the bug monday after 6pmGMT

(0002519) maikel (reporter) 2012-01-09 07:01	This can be closed The intern used the RHEL5 repo on centos 6

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2012-01-05 09:24	maikel	New Issue
2012-01-05 19:47	obilodeau	Status	new => assigned
2012-01-05 19:47	obilodeau	Assigned To	=> obilodeau
2012-01-05 19:51	obilodeau	Note Added: 0002515
2012-01-05 19:51	obilodeau	Status	assigned => feedback
2012-01-06 13:50	maikel	Note Added: 0002518
2012-01-09 07:01	maikel	Note Added: 0002519
2012-01-09 08:36	obilodeau	Status	feedback => resolved
2012-01-09 08:36	obilodeau	Resolution	open => no change required
2012-06-14 12:21	obilodeau	Status	resolved => closed