Re: [PacketFence-users] upgrade from 3.1.0 to 3.3.2 empty pf.conf after configurator.pl

[Barry Q. <bar...@gm...>]

On 5/29/2012 10:11 AM, Derek Wuelfrath wrote:
> Barry
>>>> Well, I'm glad you asked I am having a bit if an issue.  This was a 
>>>> working ( although limited since not fully deployed ) 3.1.0 box.  
>>>> Now when I try to start pf I get the following:
>>>>
>>>> Starting PacketFence...Checking configuration sanity...
>>>> Use of uninitialized value $net{"named"} in pattern match (m//) at 
>>>> /usr/local/pf/lib/pf/pfcmd/checkup.pm line 362.
>>>> Use of uninitialized value $net{"dhcpd"} in pattern match (m//) at 
>>>> /usr/local/pf/lib/pf/pfcmd/checkup.pm line 369.
>>>> FATAL - please define exactly one management interface
>>>> FATAL - internal network(s) not defined!
>>>>
> From what I can see from the provided config files, the followings 
> needs to be modified:
> - Remove the entire [192.168.11.0] section from networks.conf. This is 
> your management network and don't need to be specified in the 
> networks.conf file
> - You seems to be missing an isolation interface / network. PF will 
> complain if any of those (registration / isolation) is missing.
>
> Try these fixes and let me know.
>
> Thanks!
>

So adding a isolation network/interface didn't do it.  Being a bit of a 
perl monkey I broke into checkup.pm  I found the function 
interfaces_defined where the error "FATAL - please define exactly one 
management interface" is coming from.  I put a few print statements in 
to see what was going on.  I can see that I enter that function.  But 
the foreach loop that iterates through the interfaces and validates the 
interface config blocks is not being entered.  So the counter 
nb_management_interface is not being incremented and that causes the 
error to be generated.  I'm guessing %Config->GroupMembers("interface") 
is somehow empty.  I bet it relates to the "Use of uninitialized value 
$net{"named"} in pattern match (m//) at 
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/pfcmd/checkup.pm line 362" as to why that's 
empty.   I will keep digging but since you know the code better then I 
do an suggestions would be appreciated.