Ubuntu 6.10 (edgy) installation fails with message source: not found

[eombah]

Hi,

This is for other people running into this problem, which took me quite some time to resolve.

I have Zimbra running fine on Ubuntu 6.06 Server.
Then I tried to install Zimbra on Ubuntu 6.10 Server.
Installation failed with the following error in the zmsetup log:

/opt/zimbra/bin/ldap: 32: source: not found
FAILED (256)

It turns out that this is caused by the Ubuntu shell that is used by some of the Zimbra install scripts /bin/sh.
In Ubuntu 6.06, /bin/sh symlinks to /bin/bash.
In Ubuntu 6.10, /bin/sh symlinks to /bin/dash.

Changing /bin/sh to link to /bin/bash solved the problems.

cheers Bart.

[tangtan]

Can you elaborate on how to change the links?
Thanks

[dijichi2]

this is a strange move by ubuntu/debian, dash is a stripped down posix shell. with edgy ubuntu has done a few things to try and really make it much faster but has some pretty radical changes in it - personally I would avoid trying to run zimbra on edgy until it's officially supported unless you're just playing.

if you want to reset the main symlink, do

rm /bin/sh
ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh

[eombah]

yes, it is a strange move that Edgy (= Ubuntu 6.10) made here.
I must say though that I have never seen such fast boot times as in edgy.

By the way, I forgot to mention that in my post, the problem is that the source command is not available in dash, where it is available in bash.

One reason for me to consider running zimbra on edgy is that I run zimbra in a XEN virtual machine and edgy has standard xen packages and a xen-friendly libc, which should allow zimbra to run much faster than on dapper (= Ubuntu 6.06) since zimbra uses nptl.

Up untill now I have not had problems other than the spell checker service not starting, but I haven't look at that yet.

cheers Bart.

[dijichi2]

yeah the boot times are fantastic!! still, it has almost completely broken runlevels and svr init structure and I think the replacement they're using is still in a state of flux and yet to be adopted by anyone else. i don't understand why they've made this change in a minor version release, rather like suse changing their package infrastructure in a point release - they're crazy! this is a good example of why redhat wins out in the enterprise..