The new version 3.2.0 is now out as production. We need to look into upgrading the version in fedora.
I already take a look at this ; but 3.2 version comes with 2 perl modules that must be packaged separately (according to Fedora's rules). I do not have time now to handle new packages unfortunately. If someone wish to contribute...
What does it come with that are a problem?
See packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Which specific libraries are bundled that are the problem. I was going to see if I could find them already bundled by someone else.
(In reply to comment #0) > The new version 3.2.0 is now out as production. We need to look into > upgrading the version in fedora. Johan, Can you be more specific? Reviewing the documentation for 3.2.0 I don't see any additional Perl module requirements.
Yeah I can't find this out either.
Sorry, I did not see comment #4... The two perl modules I was talking about are not requirements for 3.2.0 ; they are shipped in the archive. They stand in "/BackupPC-3.2.0/lib/Net/FTP/" : - AutoReconnect.pm - RetrHandle.pm I already have worked on those two libs ; but one does not build completely (do not remember which one - but as far as I remember ; that fails on 'make test'). You can find the two specfiles: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/BackupPC/3.2.0_modules/
Someone has posted recently on the BackupPC mailing list regarding this module that does not pass tests: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4CDA1A8C.9040901%40vpac.org&forum_name=backuppc-users
(In reply to comment #7) > Sorry, I did not see comment #4... > > The two perl modules I was talking about are not requirements for 3.2.0 ; they > are shipped in the archive. > > They stand in "/BackupPC-3.2.0/lib/Net/FTP/" : > - AutoReconnect.pm > - RetrHandle.pm > > I already have worked on those two libs ; but one does not build completely (do > not remember which one - but as far as I remember ; that fails on 'make test'). > You can find the two specfiles: > http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/BackupPC/3.2.0_modules/ I believe it was Net::FTP::RetrHandle because I looked it up on cpantesters and found that it failed on almost every system including all linux systems. That was several months ago now I can't find that it even exists on Cpantesters. But it is still showing on perl.org. Can we just ship BackupPC without FTP support? I know I'm not using it.
Created attachment 496327 [details] Updated spec for 3.2.1 Updated spec for 3.2.1. This removes the 2 perl modules in %prep and applies a patch to configure.pl so it doesn't look for them. I also tried adding a Requires for rrdtool-perl to see if the graphs will work but that may not be enough by itself.
Created attachment 496328 [details] Patch configure.pl so it doesn't look for the bundled perl libraries.
(In reply to comment #10) > Created attachment 496327 [details] > Updated spec for 3.2.1 > > Updated spec for 3.2.1. > This removes the 2 perl modules in %prep and applies a patch to configure.pl so > it doesn't look for them. > > I also tried adding a Requires for rrdtool-perl to see if the graphs will work > but that may not be enough by itself. Forgot to add, commented out the TopDir patch as it doesn't appear to be necessary anymore. Took a chance and built (under mock) and installed and so far so good. Did a full backup of one of my hosts.
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #10) > > I also tried adding a Requires for rrdtool-perl to see if the graphs will work > > but that may not be enough by itself. Turns out that's a Debian/Ubuntu hack, oh well. Sure looked nice.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '13'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This bug should stay open. I have provided a "fix" but have not gotten any feedback.
OK I had not caught that this was fixed or attempted to be fixed. I will get this server upgraded to 15 and try it out in the next week or so.
I've got packages up on fedorapeople.org if you're interested. http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/BackupPC/
Have you had a chance to try my package or build your own for testing?
Unless I'm mistaken, your patch breaks FTP backups (everything looks fine in build/install but trying ftp backup will fail?). I don't think we can ship it that way. Probably the easiest thing is to try to get the bundled libraries in Fedora.
Yes, unfortunately it has to break FTP backups. I would like to see the perl modules packaged for Fedora but I don't know how that can happen since one of the modules, Net::FTP::RetrHandle, doesn't build and fails its tests. See: http://static.cpantesters.org/distro/N/Net-FTP-RetrHandle.html I've have repeatedly asked on the BackupPC mailing lists (user and devel) why they use a module that's so broken but I have yet to get an answer. It has really been quite frustrating to put it mildly. After that I gave up and yanked the modules. Thanks, Richard
I added review requests for both required packages (bz #720085, bz #720086). If anyone is has a sponsor and can review them, I would appreciate it.
Here is a scratch build for F15 i686/x86_64 if you want to do some testing. You'll have to use --nodeps to install and bypass the two FTP related perl module dependencies until they are available. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3188005 There are a lot of changes, so chance of breakage is high - back up your configuration. - v 3.2.1 - add lower case script URL alias for typing impaired - cleanup selinux macros - spec cleanup - make samba dependency on actual files required to EL5 can use samba-client or samba3x-client (bz #667479) - unbundle perl(Net::FTP::AutoReconnect) and perl(Net::FTP::RetrHandle) - remove old patch that is no longer needed - attempt to make sure $Conf{TopDir} is listed in updatedb PRUNEPATHS, otherwise at least generate a warning on statup (bz #554491) - move sockets to /var/run (bz #719499) - add support for systemd starting at F16 (bz #699441) - patch to move pid dir under /var/run - minor spec cleanup - unbundle Net::FTP::* - add support for tmpfiles.d
After updating and trying to start the service I got the following error: # service backuppc start Starting BackupPC: [ OK ] /etc/init.d/backuppc: line 33: [: missing `]' Adding a space between the "1" and the "]" on line 33 fixed it for me. Richard
Just noticed a sealert related to BackupPC since upgrading to the koji version (I rebuilt the srpm in mock for F14: SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/perl from write access on the sock_file BackupPC.sock. ***** Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests *************************** If you believe that perl should be allowed write access on the BackupPC.sock sock_file by default. Then you should report this as a bug. You can generate a local policy module to allow this access. Do allow this access for now by executing: # grep BackupPC_Admin. /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol # semodule -i mypol.pp Additional Information: Source Context unconfined_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 Target Context unconfined_u:object_r:var_run_t:s0 Target Objects BackupPC.sock [ sock_file ] Source BackupPC_Admin. Source Path /usr/bin/perl Port <Unknown> Host hobbes.localdomain Source RPM Packages perl-5.12.3-143.fc14 Target RPM Packages Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.9.7-43.fc14 Selinux Enabled True Policy Type targeted Enforcing Mode Permissive Host Name hobbes.localdomain Platform Linux hobbes.localdomain 2.6.38.8-31.fc14.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 7 09:47:54 CDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 Alert Count 2 First Seen Sun 10 Jul 2011 07:27:54 PM CDT Last Seen Sun 10 Jul 2011 08:26:23 PM CDT Local ID 59595d57-b90e-4283-8075-13cddba51894 Raw Audit Messages type=AVC msg=audit(1310347583.36:78172): avc: denied { write } for pid=13095 comm="BackupPC_Admin." name="BackupPC.sock" dev=dm-3 ino=10879680 scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 tcontext=unconfined_u:object_r:var_run_t:s0 tclass=sock_file type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1310347583.36:78172): arch=x86_64 syscall=connect success=yes exit=0 a0=3 a1=233bbe0 a2=6e a3=0 items=0 ppid=12349 pid=13095 auid=500 uid=48 gid=489 euid=489 suid=489 fsuid=489 egid=489 sgid=489 fsgid=489 tty=(none) ses=488 comm=BackupPC_Admin. exe=/usr/bin/perl subj=unconfined_u:system_r:httpd_t:s0 key=(null) Hash: BackupPC_Admin.,httpd_t,var_run_t,sock_file,write audit2allow #============= httpd_t ============== allow httpd_t var_run_t:sock_file write; audit2allow -R #============= httpd_t ============== allow httpd_t var_run_t:sock_file write;
See if this fixes it for you. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3192895
I've installed the package and restarted my server, I'll check tonight if there's any sealerts. BTW, the /etc/init.d/backuppc still had the problem on line 33. Thanks, Richard
Ok, I'm still getting selinux alerts... I thought they had stopped because they were fixed but apparently when I reinstalled for 3.2.1 it turned off the service so it hasn't been running since 7/14....
Created attachment 516025 [details] Spec git diff Ok, suddenly had a though. I made BackupPC cause an sealert and then did the audit2allow per the troubleshooter, but instead of applying it I compared the output to what's in the spec file and added it. So far I've clicked on about every option in the CGI interface and did backups and archived them and no more alerts. Archiving was broken until I did this.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el6
It was unclear to me which version you were running (I did make some changes to selinux configuration in between test versions). I'm going to push the new version to get it in other peoples hands. Please make sure you are using it and if you see selinux errors, open another bug and I'll start working on those changes.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el5
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc15
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc14
Created attachment 517213 [details] SELinux additions to the spec file No, it does not appear the SELinux policy updates are in the current package. I just downloaded the F15 SRPM. Here's a diff compared to mine.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
BackupPC-3.2.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Someone from the BackuPC mailing list is having issues installing BackupPC on a RHEL 6.1 system, details below. Can you offer any advice? I want to make sure it's not due to the new perl modules. --- got back to this today. I have been finding and installing each of the dependencies and then came to: "perl-XML-RSS" It had a dependency of: "perl-DateTime-Format-Mail" I found that and tried installing it and got: " Requires: perl(DateTime) >= 0.1705 Installed: 1:perl-DateTime-0.5300-1.el6.x86_64 (@rhel-6-server-rpms) perl(DateTime) = 0.53 " I looked this up and it seems to be a dilemma, I've got a newer version than what it seems to require however it won't install. This is the last thing BackupPC seems to be complaining about, if I can figure this out I can proceed with the installation. I don't remember this happening on my test system, but even though it was the same OS it was a different environment. Ideas about getting around this please? Rick Bastedo On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell> wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Rick Bastedo <rbastedo> wrote: > Well I've been told we are using backuppc, so that's why I am using it. > That's the way it works where I work. Perhaps if you explained the details of what you have to do to get something on to the DPM system someone could help with making backuppc do it for you. > I tried installing from EPEL. > > You said: > "You should probably configure the EPEL yum repository and use 'yum > install backuppc' to do the install. The way yum works, it will > install any needed dependencies so it won't matter much what you > installed initially. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL6-FAQ#How_do_I_use_it.3F" > > > Here's the error I got when trying: > > yum install > http://mirror.pnl.gov/epel/6/x86_64/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64.rpm >>(blah blah blah --> Processing Dependencies... etc) > ... ... ... ... > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(Net::FTP::RetrHandle) > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(XML::RSS) > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(Time::ParseDate) > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(Archive::Zip) > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl-Time-modules > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(File::RsyncP) > Error: Package: BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64 (/BackupPC-3.2.1-6.el6.x86_64) > Requires: perl(Net::FTP::AutoReconnect) > > I added EPEL as a repository when I installed and yes this is a registered > RHEL 6.1 install. > I make no claim at being adept in Linux, so don't fear offending me by > pointing out obvious idiocy on my part. I've only done it on CentOS where yum is the native update tool and is configured to resolve/install dependencies automatically, so it 'just works'. Maybe the RHEL yum setup is different. Can you 'yum install' each of those required packages (enclose the names in single quotes, or change the style to look like perl-File-RsyncP)? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell
1. Please don't hijack bugs for different errors. It's much cleaner opening separate bugs which I can then mark duplicate or resolve differently. This bug is already closed. In general, nobody follows closed bugs. 2. Thank you for providing this kind of help and monitoring the upstream mailing list. I'm only able to periodically monitor it and this kind of feedback is important. 3. Have a look at this and see if it's the problem: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740276 4. If that is the problem, open another bug against the BackupPC package that specifies that a README.EPEL needs to be created to document this situation.
Sorry about that! I thought that if it was directly related to the update then it was appropriate. I also didn't want to open a new bug if it turned out to be a configuration problem on the end users side. I don't know why, opening a bug doesn't cost anything :) As it turns out that was the case. He had the expectation (and so would I) that when he configured EPEL during install that it would be available after install. Apparently this is not the case. After adding the appropriate yum configuration BackupPC installed fine. Thanks, Richard
(In reply to comment #41) > opening a bug doesn't cost anything :) Exactly! > As it turns out that was the case. He had the expectation (and so would I) that > when he configured EPEL during install that it would be available after > install. Apparently this is not the case. After adding the appropriate yum > configuration BackupPC installed fine. Ok, great! Please open a bug to add this documentation. If it's happened twice already, it will happen again and deserves to be documented. Thanks again for working with our end-users out there!
Bug submitted. I submitted it in Fedora since that's where BackuPC lives, I hope that's the right way. Of course that prevented me from marking the version correctly since RHEL 6 is not an option. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749627 Thanks, Richard