Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 552263
Package of bacula-2.4.4 client is needed for compatibility
Last modified: 2010-06-01 15:41:45 EDT
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes and yes. What harm would that do? Tag it FutureFeature if you like.
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.
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).
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.
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.
bacula2 is now a reality.