Description of problem: In my system message log, I saw a lot of messages like this: Apr 22 12:27:31 HOSTNAME fenced[2643]: agent "fence_ilo" reports: Net::SSL.pm or Net::SSLeay::Handle.pm not found. Please install the perl-Crypt-SSLeay package from RHN (http://rhn.redhat.com) or Net::SSLeay from CPAN (http://www.cpan.org) It seems the fence_ilo script needs the perl-Crypt-SSLeay module to function properly. So I suggest that perl-Crypt-SSLeay be added to the "fence" package's list of required RPMs. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1.32.18-0 How reproducible: Every time. Steps to Reproduce: 1. In a two-node cluster using HP ILOs as fencing devices, shut down both nodes. 2. Start one of the nodes. 3. Watch the system messages on the node which has been started. (There are probably other ways to reproduce the problem.)
This is a known dependency and is documented as such.
Regardless of documentation this is a package dependency and should be recorded as such by RPM. Unlike the other perl packages used by fence this one doesn't get picked up by RPMs dependency generator: $ rpm -q --requires fence ... ( file & .so cruft trimmed ) ... perl(Getopt::Std) perl(IO::Socket) perl(IPC::Open3) perl(Net::Telnet) perl(POSIX) ... ( file & .so cruft trimmed ) ... This seems to be because there is no "use" directive for the perl-Crypt-SSLeay module (this is what triggers RPM's dep finder). The easy way to fix this is by adding an explicit Requires for the module to the package spec file: Requires: perl(Crypt::SSLeay) I've tested this and it gives expected behavior. Adding a "use Net::SSLeay" line in fence-1.32.40.1/agents/ilo/fence_ilo achieves the same net result but seems to go against the way the script tries to use the module. This causes problems for users who rely on automatic dependency resolution when setting up clusters as it leaves an unsatisfied dependency and broken fencing. If there's some reason why this dependency would be harmful, can we find out what it is so that it can be properly documented? Thanks!
I agree with Bryn, bug 280191 created against Fedora devel.
Fencing is an area best left as is. Changing the distribution structure for this ticket would just cause confusion for the many existing cluster users. There are enough 'rock the boat' changes between major releases as it is; changing the way fencing is installed and requiring that customers understand this change (now, and whenever they wish to modify their fencing configuration down the road) because of this ticket is ridiculous. This is the very first ticket of this nature I recall seeing in my 5 year tenure as fence package maintainer. Not an issue - closing.