|
Re: debian etch update broke amanda
2009-08-25 20:53:30
Steve Wray wrote:
Hi there,
I am still trying to get to the bottom of this.
I think I got to the bottom of this.
You know how Debian never fixes bugs in the stable release unless its a
security related bug?
And how the amanda in Debian Etch was released to stable with the gtar bug?
So that in order to have a working amanda/gtar in Debian Etch you have to
use the amanda packages from the testing branch?
Well, on the two servers that had this problem, the apt/sources.list entry
pointing to testing was commented out.
I'm not sure exactly how this actually ended up being applied because the
dpkg.log shows NO changes to amanda packages, but after an apt-get upgrade
these two servers ended up with the broken 'stable' version of amanda from
Debian Etch.
I replaced the 'stable' version with the one from 'testing' and it all
seems good now.
Stability. I love it and hate it at the same time.
I have some servers running Debian Etch. They have been fine with amanda
for a very long time now.
I just ran an apt-get upgrade to apply some security patches and
suddenly I'm getting the old "file changed as we read it" and "error
[/bin/tar returned 1]" again. I'd hoped to see the last of this.
The thing is, looking at the packages that apt-get upgrade installed I
have no idea why this should have happened:
2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libisc11 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libdns22 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccc0 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccfg1 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libbind9-0 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed liblwres9 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed bind9-host 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed dnsutils 1:9.3.4-2etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libapr1 1.2.7-9
2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed libaprutil1 1.2.7+dfsg-2+etch3
2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed apache2-utils 2.2.3-4+etch10
2009-08-20 09:17:12 status installed apache2.2-common 2.2.3-4+etch10
2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2-mpm-worker 2.2.3-4+etch10
2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2 2.2.3-4+etch10
2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libopenssl-ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5
2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libxml2 2.6.27.dfsg-6+etch1
2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5
This seems to make little sense.
Package: amanda-client
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: utils
Installed-Size: 288
Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <bdale AT gag DOT com>
Architecture: i386
Source: amanda
Version: 1:2.5.1p1-2.1
Package: tar
Essential: yes
Status: install ok installed
Priority: required
Section: utils
Installed-Size: 1576
Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <bdale AT gag DOT com>
Architecture: i386
Version: 1.16-2etch1
Yeah at some stage this should go to a Debian list, but I feel that I
need to do more figuring out yet.
--
Please remember that an email is just like a postcard; it is not
confidential nor private nor secure and can be read by many other people
than the intended recipient. A postcard can be read by anyone at the mail
sorting office and expecting what is written on it to be private and secret
is not realistic. Please hold no higher expectation of email.
If you need to send confidential information in an email you need to use
encryption. PGP is Pretty good for this.
|
|
|
