Amanda-Users

Re: gnu tar-1.15+ for RHEL4

2006-04-07 20:24:58
Subject: Re: gnu tar-1.15+ for RHEL4
From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:19:42 -0400
On Friday 07 April 2006 13:04, Guy Dallaire wrote:
>2006/4/7, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>:
>> I'm told that the 1.14 versions from RH, if fresh, have the
>> backported patches that fixed 1.14 so it worked.  I think I'd make a
>> softlink & see if it works.
>
>Yes the 1.14 fromRH is supposed to work, but I don't see how a symlink
>would resolve the issue ? Or I do not understand what you mean by a
>symlink... a symlink to the 1.14 package named tar-1.15 ? How would
>you create that and how would it fix the problem ???
>
>In any case, installing amanda from source is VERY EASY and you have a
>lot more options that using a pre-packaged RPM and I would siggest the
>OP to to that instead. (And install the latest gnu tar from source as
>well, telling amanda to use the compiled gnu-tar instead with the
>--with-gnu-tar configuration switch...)

This is a classic example of why we're not always in favor of the 
distros packaging system, in this case rpm.  One of the guy's who 
thinks he's God or something has as much as told me to use the rpms or 
at least some other distro since I make too much noise on his favorite 
list.  Over stuff that doesn't work, and isn't ever going to work right 
as long as the rpm builder isn't familiar with how the software he is 
trying to package is actually supposed to work.  I pointed it out to 
him that amanda was an example of busted rpms from the gitgo 7+ years 
ago, but he was adament the he was correct & I'm a blithering idiot.

At that point I told him he needed a shorter horse, the one he was on 
was obviously way too tall. (with possible oxygen deprivation effects 
readily apparent to most observers.)

I may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but those that do know me, 
know me as an abrasive old coot, who is right way more than just 
rolling the dice would account for.

Now I've installed FC5 on another hard drive, and for all the fancy 
foomatic based automatic driver generation it uses,  the output of my 
C82 in its gold standard mode, 1440x1440 dpi, isn't fit to line the 
floor of the canary cage I haven't had for 50+ years.  I can sell the 
output of the setup I have on this FC2 install, and have quite a few 
times...  I think that should settle the argument, but this guy is 
seemingly immune to the truth if it isn't company approved truth.


-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

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