Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29740 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2009 12:51:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2009 12:51:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 766 invoked by uid 500); 16 Sep 2009 12:51:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 680 invoked by uid 500); 16 Sep 2009 12:51:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 669 invoked by uid 99); 16 Sep 2009 12:51:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:51:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.97.50.139] (HELO jan.prima.de) (83.97.50.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:50:51 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.5] (f053044196.adsl.alicedsl.de [::ffff:78.53.44.196]) (AUTH: LOGIN jan, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by jan.prima.de with esmtp; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:45:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Subject: Re: CouchDB failing to open socket 5984 ? From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:44:58 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <86C24C65-9493-4D41-86E1-C60BBB632F66@apache.org> References: <5F4F0CBE-451F-4548-A682-50B968163B26@apache.org> <20090916080042.GB11478@uk.tiscali.com> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 16 Sep 2009, at 14:21, Adam Kocoloski wrote: > On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Brian Candler wrote: > >> Does this make any sense to you? It looks like it's reading >> couch.beam from >> couch-0.11.0a815641 (correct), but couch.app from >> couch-0.9.0a767213 (?!). > > Bingo, there's the problem. It looks like Erlang's code loader > wasn't prepared for double-digit minor versions, and it considers > 0.9.* as newer than 0.1* (including 0.10 and 0.11). > > This may be a serious problem for the 0.10 release, as anyone who > upgrades from 0.9.x to 0.10.0 using the same install prefix may end > up with a crash. Thanks again, We had this popping up on IRC today, again. I agree this is serious. Is there anything we can do on install time that checks for older versions? Cheers Jan --