Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula in Ubuntu 8.04 without TLS?


Ryan Novosielski schrieb:
> Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Ryan Novosielski <novosirj AT umdnj DOT 
>> edu> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ryan Novosielski <novosirj AT umdnj DOT 
>>>> edu> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Dan Langille <dan AT langille DOT org> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Landon Fuller wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Philipp Geschke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can somebody confirm that Ubuntu seriously compiled Bacula in 8.04
>>>>>>>>> without TLS after having it enabled in 7.10?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or am I just being dumb?
>>>>>>>> Debian upstream disabled it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> README.Debian:
>>>>>>>>     bacula (2.2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     * SSL/TLS has been disabled in this version of Bacula due to 
>>>>>>>> licensing
>>>>>>>>      concerns.  See README.Debian and the thread at
>>>>>>>>      http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00144.html for 
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>      details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NEWS.Debian
>>>>>>>>     Due to licensing concerns (see NEWS.Debian), SSL/TLS is disabled in
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>     Debian builds.  This disables both encryption for the on-the-wire
>>>>>>>>     protocol as well as encryption of the backed-up data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kern specifically allows linking against OpenSSL in the Bacula, and has
>>>>>>>> removed any GPL code that can not contain this exception:
>>>>>>>>     As a special exception to the GPLv2, the Bacula Project gives
>>>>>>>>     permission to link the code of its release of Bacula with the 
>>>>>>>> OpenSSL
>>>>>>>>     project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that 
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>     the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the 
>>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>>>     executables.  You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
>>>>>>>>     respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess Debian considers the OpenSSL license and the GPL license
>>>>>>>> incompatible, and removed support prior to Kern's changes.
>>>>>>>> The whole issue is a bit droll.
>>>>>>> This is why I like packaging systems which allow you to compile from 
>>>>>>> source.
>>>>>> Why don't you recompile it from source then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apt-get build-dep bacula
>>>>>> aptitude install libssl-dev openssl
>>>>>> aptitude source bacula
>>>>>> cd bacula-2....
>>>>>> vim debian/rules
>>>>>>     # (change the options to enable ssl tls)
>>>>>> debian/rules binary
>>>>>>    #it should now compile and pack all bacula packages
>>>>>> cd ..
>>>>>> dpkg -i bacula*.deb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done.
>>>>> Yes, this is what I was talking about, not getting the source and
>>>>> compiling/installing from source alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only issue you may run into here is the distribution's affinity for
>>>>> the repository over locally installed packages. I ran into that when
>>>>> building tOra with Oracle support. I don't recall how I solved it, but I
>>>>> believe there's another step that fixes the changelog so that your
>>>>> version is a little newer than the repository but not so new that you
>>>>> miss updates.
>>>> Well, the commands I sent earlier get the source code of the version
>>>> you have installed currently.
>>>>
>>>> So if ubuntu has 2.2.0 the source code for that deb file will be
>>>> downloaded. The goal of this is to just recreate the bacula.deb
>>>> package with tls support. Not newer code will be downloaded.
>>> Exactly, but apparently software that exists in a Debian repository
>>> receives a higher priority than locally installed updates for whatever
>>> reason, meaning if there are two equal installs of say 2.2.0,
>>> Ubuntu/Debian will prefer to go out and install the version from the
>>> repository and will try to "upgrade" you to it constantly. Someone is
>>> free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I remember it working.
>> I think you are correct.
>> If you don't want to upgrade run:
>> aptitude hold bacula
> 
>> "Fix a package at its current version and don't upgrade it automatically"
> 
> And yet another gotcha: adept_updater on KDE (not sure how the GNOME
> equivalent behaves) will tell you about the newer package, even though
> the eventual package action will be to hold at the current release. This
> may or may not be considered a bug, IMHO.
> 
> Really the only proper way to do this is edit the Debian Changelog in
> the prescribed way (which is pretty easy to do i one just hunts around
> for a tutorial... one or two commands). Then the package will be handled
> the way it ought to be handled.
> 

Personally I prefer to get the sources, compile them the way I want them, thow 
them in a .deb package with a
name different to the original name, and put them on our own apt repository. 
This way I
a) Only need to compile once for each arch
b) can easily distribute updates to my modified version
c) dont conflict with what dpkg thinks is the newer version, as I don't have a 
package called bacula-fd installed.

and it is much less work most people would think.

Another way of keeping your own version, if you compile from the -src package 
is to work with apt-pinning, but
that is really painfull :-(

Problem with bacula is, that I am using bacula not only on debian based 
servers, so I would have to build a
package for each arch for debian, one for each arch one OpenSuSE, one for RHEL, 
fedora, centos, etc. Thats why I
would prefer to use the distro maintainers version.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users