pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] initial pass at fixing zbxpcp.so for Zabbix v3

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] initial pass at fixing zbxpcp.so for Zabbix v3
From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:04:03 +0200
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <262603004.28935441.1457477525468.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <675485289.27235420.1457066754101.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <56DD5312.2030004@xxxxxxxxxx> <889910044.28687035.1457397212945.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <56DEAF06.50801@xxxxxxxxxx> <262603004.28935441.1457477525468.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
Hi,

On 2016-03-09 00:52, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>> As discussed on IRC, I've changed it to make version detection dynamic
>>> using a separate script, so that we avoid relying on the end-user doing
>>> the configuration themselves.  Lightly tested, will flesh out the QA if
>>> you're thinking this approach still looks OK at this stage?
>> [...]
>>
>> Zabbix Agent (daemon) v2.4.7 (revision 56694) (12 November 2015)
>> Compilation time: Nov 13 2015 10:42:17
>>
>> zabbix_agentd (daemon) (Zabbix) 3.0.0
>> Revision 58460 15 February 2016, compilation time: Feb 15 2016 16:15:24
> 
> /me shakes his head, wow
> 
>> - did you test this with Zabbix agent or by some other means? I'm seeing
> 
> Just tested the script, and only lightly (as mentioned) so as to not spend
> too much time on code that's not likely to go anywhere.  Turned out to be
> a good idea...
> 
> Ding, ding - here's round three, based on our IRC chat this morning - back
> to earlier thoughts along the dlsym(3) line.  I'm assured it cannot fail,
> so compile-tested only at this stage.

Yes, thanks a lot, it didn't fail, works out perfectly, tested
zabbix-agent 2.4.7 and 3.0.0 on RHEL 7 using RPMs from Zabbix.
(Symbol-wise 2.2 is the same as 2.4.)

Cheers,

-- 
Marko Myllynen

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>