On Tuesday 05 December 2006 11:10, Scott Barninger wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 09:47 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > Well, any time you upgrade a database, whether or not it is MySQL, SQLite, or > > PostgreSQL, there is a good probability that Bacula needs to be recompiled. > > My experience is that this is rare for MySQL as long as the first two > > versions do not change. For PostgreSQL, the general rule is that one must > > always recompile, and worse, for PostgreSQL, you can easily corrupt your > > database if you don't back it up and reload it after the upgrade. If I am not > > mistaken, this is stated in the manual. > > Well, this is the first time I have seen an incompatible upgrade within > a current distribution.
I don't know if someone screwed up, but sometimes when fixing a bug, you are forced to modify the program in a non-downward compatible way. > > > > > I didn't look at the issue of rpm requires. It seems to me that to be safe, > > that the rpm should alway require exactly the same version it was built with. > > This may be a bit overkill, but it is the safest. > > Ugh, no. Way too much overhead. Yes, that is probably correct, but it should probably require the same version (all parts of the version) or greater. > > > > > > > The best advice I have is that if you are running a production system with > > Bacula or any other program that uses an SQL engine, do not upgrade your SQL > > engine without upgrading all the other software that uses it. > > > > Concerning Fedora. I used that distribution. I dropped it because there were > > just too many problems. I don't regret for a second having dropped it because > > I have had *far* fewer problems. My personal problems were with FC4 and then > > worse ones with FC5. In the articles I've read since then FC6 is rated even > > worse. I feel sorry for any Fedora user unless he really enjoys being on the > > bloody edge. > > > > Scott, if you would like to build and release new rpms, OK, but I think we > > should be careful about letting the Fedora cowboys jerk us around. I don't > > know how to go about documenting this as this particular incident doesn't > > seem to be something for the manual, and all the other ways of providing > > documentation don't seem to reach many of the users. If you have specific > > suggestions, I'm listening. I would recommend that you send an email to the > > bacula-users and bacula-devel lists describing the problem. My proposed > > solutions would be:. the user reverts to the previous version of MySQL. > > You misunderstood, the released packages were built against a later > version 5.0.24, updating to which fixed the problem. I expect this > thread will serve to document it as well as any. Yes, I see, I got it backwards. Well, I guess the moral is that we should try to build the rpms on the base system, but this is not always practical especially on fast moving (and buggy) distro releases. OK, I agree that this thread (less my confusion) is probably sufficient to point out the problem. Regards, Kern ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
