Re: [Bacula-devel] bacula v3.0.1 hang/lockup

Shad L. Lords wrote: > I've been seeing bacula hang/lockup for a while now. It appears to be > happening in the SD. When the condition happens I'm still able to > connect to the DIR and issue commands. However when I try to do a > status storage command it will hang on "Used Volume status:".

Re: [Bacula-devel] Sqlite3 and autoincrement

Kern Sibbald wrote: > Based on the information you provided below, I have reopened the bug report > and posted my suggested fix. Sorry that I missed the fact that the Bacula > developers added the offending "AUTOINCREMENT". I would appreciate a > confirmation to the bug report whether or not

Re: [Bacula-devel] Sqlite3 and autoincrement

Sven Hartge wrote: > Kern Sibbald wrote: > >> Based on the information you provided below, I have reopened the bug report >> and posted my suggested fix. Sorry that I missed the fact that the Bacula >> developers added the offending "AUTOINCREMENT". I woul

Re: [Bacula-devel] MySQL indexes

On 02.10.2017 06:03, Phil Stracchino wrote: > While answering a user question the other day on identifying files that > span tape boundaries, I extended one of the indexes on the File table: > > > MySQL localhost> alter table File drop index PathId, add index PathId > (PathId, FilenameId, FileIn

[Bacula-devel] Leftover file bacula/src/lib/lz4.c.orig?

Hello! While doing some test builds for Debian I encountered a strange leftover file in the 9.0-branch: http://www.bacula.org/git/cgit.cgi/bacula/tree/bacula/src/lib/lz4.c.orig Is this some arteface from patch and the orig-file was leftover? The commit message from http://www.bacula.org/git/cg

Re: [Bacula-devel] Leftover file bacula/src/lib/lz4.c.orig?

On 28.10.2017 20:45, Kern Sibbald wrote: > The file you mention was saved in case I had some problems with the new > version.  I have now removed the file in version 9.0.5 as it is no > longer needed. > > In the future I will attempt to find some simpler (less bothersome for > you) way to keep su

Re: [Bacula-devel] Leftover file bacula/src/lib/lz4.c.orig?

On 29.10.2017 09:13, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I have now removed that file for release 9.0.5, but if I wanted to do > something similar in the future, can you confirm that if I use *.old, it > will not cause you build problems? It shouldn't, from my understanding of the code. And it didn't really c

Re: [Bacula-devel] Qt5 support

On 07.02.2018 19:57, Phil Stracchino wrote: > I've identified the build problem, and it is quite simple and fixed by > the following patch: Thank you! I borrowed the patch for Debian, also incorporating the (strange) fix Gentoo developed for the bat-binary-is-libtool-wrapper problem you encounte

[Bacula-devel] [PATCH] Making pkg-config cross-compile safe.

dbe6c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sven Hartge Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 19:36:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Use PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG macro to search for pkg-config Cc: s...@svenhartge.de Using AC_PATH_PROG(PKGCONFIG, pkg-config, pkg-config) to search for the pkg-config binary is not cross-compile sa

Re: [Bacula-devel] [PATCH] Making pkg-config cross-compile safe.

On 01.04.2018 09:06, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Thanks for your patches.  The first two look fine, but there is a > problem with the third patch for configure.  The problem is that if > anyone builds starting from scratch from source, configure will be > overwritten when "make configure" is called.  Th

Re: [Bacula-devel] [PATCH] Making pkg-config cross-compile safe.

On 02.04.2018 09:43, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Everytime autoconf/configure.in is changed I run "make configure" in the > main directory, which does the aclocal and autoconf. Currently the aclocal part is disabled in the Makefile because of problems: Quote from the Makefile, line 67++: # Note, the

Re: [Bacula-devel] [PATCH] Making pkg-config cross-compile safe.

On 02.04.2018 09:43, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Oh, sorry, I did not look closely enough at the first patch :-(. > Everytime autoconf/configure.in is changed I run "make configure" in the > main directory, which does the aclocal and autoconf.  This way, as a > convenience to users, I distribute an up t

Re: [Bacula-devel] [PATCH] Making pkg-config cross-compile safe.

On 27.05.2018 20:10, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I have been a bit busy lately, and I did apply your patch only to find > out that it did not work.  I think you had updated some of the autoconf > files or were using a different one from me, because the new macro call > that you added to configure.in is

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 19.12.18 21:55, Sven Hartge wrote: > Is libs3 in Debian too old or the wrong libs3 to begin with? To answer my own question: Yes, libs3 in Debian is too old. Grüße, Sven signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Bacula-de

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

^~ (Should the formatting break, the full build log is here https://salsa.debian.org/bacula-team/bacula/-/jobs/95111/raw Is libs3 in Debian too old or the wrong libs3 to begin with? Grüße, Sven. Description: Add code to check and enable S3 support Author: Sven Hartge Last-Update: 2018-12

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 19.12.18 22:05, Sven Hartge wrote: > On 19.12.18 21:55, Sven Hartge wrote: > >> Is libs3 in Debian too old or the wrong libs3 to begin with? > > To answer my own question: Yes, libs3 in Debian is too old. Using the current libs3-HEAD from https://github.com/bji/libs3 re

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 19.12.18 22:56, Sven Hartge wrote: > On 19.12.18 22:05, Sven Hartge wrote: >> On 19.12.18 21:55, Sven Hartge wrote: >> >>> Is libs3 in Debian too old or the wrong libs3 to begin with? >> >> To answer my own question: Yes, libs3 in Debian is too old. > &g

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 10:07, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Hello Sven, > > Sorry you had problems. > > On my system, once libs3 is installed on the system, building Bacula > automatically picks it up. Does it? Looking really really hard at the shell code in configure tells me: It doesn't. This line https://bacul

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 11:35, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Sven, > > Hmm.  Maybe I forgot to include some code in configure.in that detects > libs3, > since HAVE_LIBS3 seems to be undefined here too. > > Sorry for the inconvenience.  I will have to look into why the libs3 > detection is not working. > > I just ma

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 12:08, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I wrote this code about 2 years ago, so I think I had forgotten a > few things that are starting to come back. I do remember having to > patch libs3 to bring it more up to date, but what I did not remember > was that apparently I installed it in /usr/local.

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 12:47, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I will download the very latest version they are using (probably > patched), and post it on bacula.org. The version I have no longer > even compiles :-( I guess you need both patches from here https://salsa.debian.org/hartge-guest/libs3/tree/master/debia

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 15:41, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I have also put the latest version of the Bacula libs3 source code into > > https://blog.bacula.org/downloads/libs3-20181010.tar.gz > > This source does not contain the latest patches that you mention below > to make it work with a newer libcurl and gcc.

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 15:56, Sven Hartge wrote: > You better throw away my version of the change and directly base your > changes on upstream commit 4f2db1eb. Scratch that comment from me, I should have looked at the version you uploaded before. The date in the filename says 2018-10-10, but inside

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.4.0

On 20.12.18 17:07, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Many thanks for the heads up ... In fact, the main difference is this here: --- libs3-2.0+20161214git06a4683/GNUmakefile2016-12-14 19:13:34.0 +0100 +++ libs3-20181010/GNUmakefile 2018-10-11 09:29:33.0 +0200 @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ end

Re: [Bacula-devel] bat and qt4

On 16.03.19 16:04, Dan Langille wrote: > I am the FreeBSD maintainer for bat. > > At present, the FreeBSD port depends upon qt4. Is qt4 still a requirement > for bat? > > I ask because: > > * qt4 has been deprecated since December 2015 (i.e. > 3 years) > * bacula9 bat will be removed from the

Re: [Bacula-devel] bat and qt4

On 23.03.19 18:20, Kern Sibbald wrote: > These links seem to be debian specific issues and are with Bacula 9.0 > and involve the tray-monitor. No, they involve Qt5.9+ and also happen on Gentoo, for example. They involve both bat and the tray-monitor. But those problems seem to be more of a genuin

Re: [Bacula-devel] Failed to compile Bacula 9.6.0 and problem with documentation encoding

On 24.02.20 12:34, Wanderlei Huttel wrote: > I've tried to to compile, bu I've receiving an error message in console.c. > = > Compiling console.c > /usr/src/bacula/bacula/libtool --silent --tag=CXX --mode=link > /usr/bin/g++  -L/usr/include/readline

Re: [Bacula-devel] Failed to compile Bacula 9.6.0 and problem with documentation encoding

On 24.02.20 12:34, Wanderlei Huttel wrote: > console.c: In function ‘int console_update_history(const char*)’: > console.c:948:21: error: ‘histfile_size’ was not declared in this scope >     int nlines = MAX(histfile_size - history_lines_added, 0); I think the fix for #5944 via 8135b9d21d is inco

Re: [Bacula-devel] 9.6.0 compile errors

On 24.02.20 18:35, Dan Langille wrote: > I noticed the 9.6.0 tarballs today and tried building them. > > I'm getting: > > console.c:950:20: error: use of undeclared identifier 'histfile_size' > 4 errors generated. > *** [console.o] Error code 1 Yeah, compilation is broken with libreadline at the

[Bacula-devel] Possible GPL licence violation via docker/baculatar/tar binary

Hi! I (or more lintian from Debian) just noticed there is a pre-compiled UPX-compressed binary GNU tar 1.29 in "bacula/src/plugins/fd/docker/baculatar" without sources. I don't think this is a wise idea, because now the sources as they are are not redistributable (as far as my understanding of th

Re: [Bacula-devel] Possible GPL licence violation via docker/baculatar/tar binary

On 26.02.20 19:47, kern wrote: > I am not the developer of the plugin, but I can assure you that my plan > was to release the full source code. > > I will look into this and get back to you hopefully tomorrow. The createimage.sh script pulls the needed sources from GitHub and (re)builds the need

Re: [Bacula-devel] Possible GPL licence violation via docker/baculatar/tar binary

On 27.02.20 14:26, Kern Sibbald wrote: > As far as I can tell there is no GPL violation because all the source > files needed to build that binary have been released, it is simply a > matter of deleting the binary prior to re-distribution. This will suffice, I concur with the analysis of the situ

Re: [Bacula-devel] Possible GPL licence violation via docker/baculatar/tar binary

On 27.02.20 14:44, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > czw., 27 lut 2020 o 14:34 Sven Hartge <mailto:s...@svenhartge.de>> napisał(a): > > On 27.02.20 14:26, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > As far as I can tell there is no GPL violation because all t

Re: [Bacula-devel] Possible GPL licence violation via docker/baculatar/tar binary

On 27.02.20 15:02, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > The required Docker container image should be built with > supplied createimage.sh script. The problem here is that Debian does not allow *any* network access during the build-phase. So checking out musl and tar from GitHub and building it is rig

Re: [Bacula-devel] Hung jobs: continued diagnosis

On 12.07.20 17:38, Phil Stracchino wrote: > This problem is very clearly tied to the 9.6.5 Director as a regression > from 9.6.3, and there are strong hints that it has to do with how the > Director is talking to the database. I can throw one datapoint at you: Before 9.6.5 the director never con

Re: [Bacula-devel] Hung jobs: continued diagnosis

On 15.07.20 00:05, Phil Stracchino wrote: 1. The triggering condition is when a DB record insertion fails for any reason, *including recoverable failures* such as InnoDB rollbacks. (MySQL uses rollbacks to notify the application of any of several types of transient error, including deadlocks or

[Bacula-devel] Bacula and OpenSSL3.0

Hi .*, Just FYI, in case it is not on your radar: OpenSSL3.0 is nearing its completion and again deprecates a number of API, some of which are used by Bacula: [...] Compiling crypto.c /build/bacula-9.6.5/libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile /usr/bin/g++ -c -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -x c++ -

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.6.6

Um 14:42 Uhr am 24.09.20 schrieb Kern Sibbald: > Unless there is some new major bug found, this will be the last of the > 9.6.x releases. The next release major release (a really big one) is > currently scheduled for December. During compilation on 32bit Debian Sid with gcc (Debian 10.2.0-9) 10

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

On 25.09.20 23:35, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Since quite some time, there has been a problem with cgit on > bacula.org. The only repo that it properly handles is bacula.git. > The two other repos libs3.git and docs.git do not work. I have spent > a lot of time on this problem, but have not yet solve

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

Um 19:49 Uhr am 28.09.20 schrieb Kern Sibbald: > Can you tell me why the version at xdocs.git works and > the one at docs.git does not work.  Note: the one at xdocs.git > was deleted a few days ago by me since it was out of date. > > I believe that I have now fixed the web interface to the three

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

On 29.09.20 16:54, Wanderlei Huttel wrote: > Have you think about migrate  bacula community source code to github > instead using an git page exlusive from Bacula? Or GitLab, if Github is too much Microsoft. Or switch to an self-hosted Gitea instance, like I do for my private projects (and inter

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

On 30.09.20 09:57, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Oh, there seem to be plenty of articles about self-hosting gitea, > so you can ignore my request -- however, if you have some special > tips, I would appreciate hearing them. It really is quite straight-forward. Configuring the ini-file, starting the servi

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

On 30.09.20 09:53, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Even if I resolve that problem, I am not 100% sure that I want to keep > it on github, because > the repo is already on bacula.org, so having one more place to push it > is just extra work. You can configure the Github repository to be a read-only mirror o

Re: [Bacula-devel] git repository for docs seems mangled

Um 10:04 Uhr am 30.09.20 schrieb Sven Hartge: > On 30.09.20 09:57, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > Oh, there seem to be plenty of articles about self-hosting gitea, > > so you can ignore my request -- however, if you have some special > > tips, I would appreciate hearing them.

Re: [Bacula-devel] Problem in git bacula

On 26.10.20 19:46, Wanderlei Huttel wrote: Following the link with screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/ZCqOa0M I can confirm, it is as broken for me. Browser Debug console confirms https://www.bacula.org/cgit.css is 404. __

[Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

Hallo .*, This references https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=975970 and https://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=2584, both filed by Radoslav Bodó, the latter on my request. It seems MariaDB 10.5 has stricter schema checking when using foreign keys and references. (Yes, I know, MariaDB

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

On 30.11.20 09:16, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: Thanks for the suggestions, we will fix the schema file following your tips, MySQL was not very strict in the past, now it is painful and difficult to get back on track. I guess many programs will have the same kind of issues with such m

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

On 30.11.20 09:16, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: Thanks for the suggestions, we will fix the schema file following your tips, MySQL was not very strict in the past, now it is painful and difficult to get back on track. I guess many programs will have the same kind of issues with such m

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

On 30.11.20 13:04, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: On 2020-11-30 12:55, Sven Hartge wrote: Are there any plans for a timely 9.6.x maintenance release to publish the changes you made today? If not I will pull those as separate patches into the Debian package to keep Bacula fit for

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

On 30.11.20 13:04, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: I'm planing to do a new major release this week (11.0.0), and we can probably release a minor version for 9.6 as the same time. We still have a couple of issues with patches to review in the bug tracker. Please forgive me for speaking

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bug#2584: MySQL schema broken for MariaDB 10.5

On 30.11.20 13:14, Sven Hartge wrote: There is still ample time to get 11.x into Debian, so if you want to focus on that, this is fine. And by "ample time" I mean: It has to be in Unstable no later than 2021-01-11, when the first stage of the Release Freeze for Bullseye begins.

[Bacula-devel] Release 11.0.0 not signed by correct key

Hello! When trying to import the new 11.0.0 release into Debian our tooling complains about it not being signed by the correct key. Until now, every release was signed by the key from https://blog.bacula.org/downloads/Bacula-4096-Distribution-Verification-key.asc with the ID 5235F5B668D81DB617

Re: [Bacula-devel] Release 11.0.0 not signed by correct key

On 07.12.20 09:10, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: You are a little bit too fast, and I'm a little bit too slow :-) I hope it will be solved in the next days. The Debian Tracker for Bacula warned me, that a new relese was ... released and thus I started the packaging process, hitting

Re: [Bacula-devel] Release 11.0.0 not signed by correct key

On 07.12.20 16:15, Phil Stracchino wrote: So I presume it safe to infer that 11.0 is a MAJOR update? Yes, it is. Grüße, Sven. ___ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-deve

Re: [Bacula-devel] Release 11.0.0 not signed by correct key

On 07.12.20 16:23, Phil Stracchino wrote: On 12/7/20 10:15 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote: So I presume it safe to infer that 11.0 is a MAJOR update? I'll pull it and do a test build on Solaris 11. ...except I need to pull from a different target, right? Someone wnat to give me a pointer here?

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 9.6.7

Um 16:43 Uhr am 10.12.20 schrieb Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel: > We are pleased to announce the release of Bacula version 9.6.7. This is > a minor bug fix release among other things the MySQL/MariaDB > schemas. I am really sorry to be this pedantic about this, but the signature is again not m

Re: [Bacula-devel] Signing keys

On 11.12.20 10:17, Kern Sibbald wrote: If you find any additional problems, please let me know. One nitpick is that the signatures are bundled into the bacula-sigs-9.6.7.tar.gz, but at least the Debian system for downloading and verifying upstream releases cannot use this (to my knowledge),

Re: [Bacula-devel] Signing keys

On 11.12.20 16:13, Kern Sibbald wrote: The individual .sig files are all available in the download area directly.  The bacula-sig tar file is for convenience, and is the only one that is listed in the WordPress download area.  We have been doing it that way for years.  Perhaps you misunderstood

Re: [Bacula-devel] Signing keys

On 11.12.20 23:10, Kern Sibbald wrote: I am talking about the public download area on www.bacula.org. Eric is handling the details of the release on Source Forge.  If there are problems there, he will help you. Ah, that was a misunderstanding then. The Debian (and I think those of other dis

Re: [Bacula-devel] Signing keys

On 12.12.20 15:39, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: I believe that it's fixed now. I can confirm this all checks out now: uscan: => Newer package available from: => https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/bacula/bacula-9.6.7.tar.gz uscan info: Downloading upstream package: bacula-9

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 11.0.0 (beta)

On 15.12.20 10:00, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: This release of Bacula uses a new catalog format. We provide a set of scripts that permit to convert a 9.x and earlier versions to the new 11.0.0 format (1023). Normally, it is automatic, though this is a big change that takes longer t

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 11.0.0 (beta)

On 15.12.20 10:33, Sven Hartge wrote: On 15.12.20 10:00, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: This release of Bacula uses a new catalog format.  We provide a set of scripts that permit to convert a 9.x and earlier versions to the new 11.0.0 format (1023).  Normally, it is automatic, though

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 11.0.0 (beta)

On 15.12.20 12:46, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: On 15/12/2020 20:41, Sven Hartge wrote: On 15.12.20 10:33, Sven Hartge wrote: On 15.12.20 10:00, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: This release of Bacula uses a new catalog format.  We provide a set of scripts that permit to convert a 9.x and

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 11.0.0 (beta)

On 15.12.20 15:10, Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel wrote: On 2020-12-15 13:23, Sven Hartge wrote: This is all known and well, but the sqlite3-update script *has* been updated to the current DB version 1023, so it was clearly adapted. But it is missing the upgrade path from Bacula 7.0.0 and

Re: [Bacula-devel] Something amiss in bacula-9.6.7: Possible race condition

On 19.01.21 19:40, Martin Simmons wrote: I say "in theory" because it looks like Bacula 9.6.4 broke this! What is the output of "show catalog" in bconsole? My guess is that you will see db_driver=MySQ i.e. missing the final "L" of MySQL. This will prevent it from reusing the BDB object, leadi

Re: [Bacula-devel] Release 11.0.1

On 08.02.21 15:17, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: I can't see the fix for the short strcpy() problem that vexed Phil, and has kept me from updating for a few versions. Has that mistake been totally rolled back, only partially applied, or forgotten? That one was already present in 11.0 but missing f

Re: [Bacula-devel] Bacula Release 13.0.0

Um 19:59 Uhr am 04.07.22 schrieb Eric Bollengier via Bacula-devel: > We are pleased to announce the release of Bacula version 13.0.0. This is > a major release of the new stable version. Trying to verify the signature on the release tar balls I get: gpgv: Signature made Fr 05 Aug 2022 17:19:18 C