Bug 552263 - Package of bacula-2.4.4 client is needed for compatibility
Package of bacula-2.4.4 client is needed for compatibility
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: bacula (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Andreas Thienemann
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 575822
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2010-01-04 09:27 EST by Andris Pavenis
Modified: 2010-06-01 15:41 EDT (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-06-01 15:41:45 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Andris Pavenis 2010-01-04 09:27:18 EST
Description of problem:

bacula-3.0 client available from Fedora-12 is incompatible with bacula-2.4.X server. Having client part of bacula-2.4.4 woul allow to backup Fedora-12 system to older bacula server (like 2.4.4)

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to use bacula client from it with existing server of older bacula (like 2.4.4). It will always fail
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:

I had problems with building old bacula version (2.4.4) in F12 (i686) due to
incompatibility with openssl version from F12. As a workaround installed F11 package and required shared libraries manually (copied out from RPMs) to have working version and to prevent yum from upgrading it.

Having package of bacula-2.4.4 client would be of course be better.
Comment 1 Felix Schwarz 2010-02-05 05:38:50 EST
Do we really support this? In Fedora general we don't introduce additional packages with older versions. If none of the bacula maintainers objects, I'll close this as WONTFIX in a week or so.
Comment 2 Paul Howarth 2010-02-05 06:03:41 EST
I don't think this is an unreasonable request. I can well envisage a setup with an EL-4 or EL-5 server and Fedora desktops; the EPEL versions of bacula are currently 2.4.4, which lines up with the reporter's state.

Having said that, I think that a bacula2-client should be a separate package (since it would be built from a different source tarball than current bacula) and should be submitted and reviewed as such rather than being another subpackage of bacula.
Comment 3 Jon Ciesla 2010-02-05 08:21:26 EST
Felix, I actually do object.  There are several people involved in the maintenance of Bacula, any of which could work on this, and I'd really rather see this depend on a review bug for the package Paul is suggesting.

That said, I don't have time to make one right now, but I'd be happy to aid in or do the review.
Comment 4 Felix Schwarz 2010-02-05 09:26:12 EST
Ok, so to summarize:
 - Having a bacula2-client package is a good idea to help Fedora users which use Fedora EPEL with 2.x director.
 - So far no one has time to produce such a package - if someone steps up, he'll get some support from existing maintainers.

Should we keep this ticket open until such a package (potentially indefinitely) exist?
Comment 5 Jon Ciesla 2010-02-05 10:26:11 EST
Yes and yes.  What harm would that do?  Tag it FutureFeature if you like.
Comment 6 Paul Howarth 2010-02-05 12:16:19 EST
OK, I've had a first crack at putting something together, based on the EL-5 package. It's a client-only package so there's no director or storage packages.



1. I don't have a bacula2 server so I can't test these
2. In fact I've not even tried *installing* them yet
3. They will conflict with the Fedora bacula packages at the moment, which needs fixing

It's a reasonable starting point though.
Comment 7 Felix Schwarz 2010-02-06 06:43:01 EST
I changed Paul's SRPM a bit so that the rpm is actually installable in parallel to bacula 3/5. Also I disabled FORTIFY_SOURCE due to a false positive in modern GCC versions (this is fixed in Bacula since 2.5.28 I think). Now the RPM should work (only the client - you can use the console packages from a newer bacula).

New srpm:

However I'm a bit reluctant to issue a review request on this package as I don't want to be responsible to maintain an old version of a pretty complex software and make all the continuous changes due to modern Fedora components. However I would step up as a co-maintainer.
Comment 8 Andris Pavenis 2010-03-11 10:03:17 EST
This package is working normally some time for me after I built from SRPM and installed already for several weeks.

Bacula server (version 2.4.2 or 2.4.4) is running under CentOS 5.

So all seems to be OK for me.
Comment 9 Jon Ciesla 2010-06-01 15:41:45 EDT
bacula2 is now a reality.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.