Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Hello Bill, Well, you happen to be quite lucky, because some distros are slow to release fixes, but I have found that Simone is very reactive and fixes problems extremely rapidly, so I expect that you will have a solution shortly. This kind of problem does unfortunately happen. For example,

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Btw, co-maintainers are welcome, I can also sponsor people in Fedora if they have made all the necessary steps: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer Regards, --Simo

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Sorry, I've not been reading this list recently, I'm swamped at work. The Fedora 24 package got built before the release, and I've forgot to test it. I've no production systems with Bacula on Fedora except one laptop. There is a new update coming with the workaround, it will be available in updates

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Hello, Fedora 23 uses gcc 5.3 and Fedora 24 uses gcc 6.1. Thus it appears that gcc (or g++) on Fedora 24 is broken -- i.e. it generates incorrect code for Bacula. Best regards, Kern On 07/04/2016 12:58 PM, bdam wrote: > [root@sabbath ~]# g++ -v > bash: g++: command not found... > > +-

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

OK, gcc is not loaded. I will check on the Fedora web site. Best regards, Kern On 07/04/2016 12:58 PM, bdam wrote: > [root@sabbath ~]# g++ -v > bash: g++: command not found... > > +-- > |This was sent by bill.dam...@yahoo.com vi

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Hello Bill, Can you tell me what version of GNU C Fedora 24 is using using (output from "g++ -v")? I am not tuned in to Fedora, but if they are using gcc >= 6.0, it might be worth while posting a bug report to Fedora. If they are using gcc >= 6.0, then a workaround it to build Bacula with -O0

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Hello Bill, OK, thanks for the responses. Unfortunately the traceback is not very useful because the symbols have been stripped, but it did give me a rough idea where the seg fault is coming from, and it looks like it may be the same bug reported in the bugs database bug #2231. If you read t

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Another question: what version of g++ are you using? On 07/04/2016 03:36 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote: > To proceed, I need to have the .traceback file that is normally in the > working directory. The bacula-sd.conf file would also be useful. > > The fact that you have a DVD device may be causing some

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

To proceed, I need to have the .traceback file that is normally in the working directory. The bacula-sd.conf file would also be useful. The fact that you have a DVD device may be causing some problems since it is no longer supported. Best regards, Kern On 07/03/2016 09:17 PM, bdam wrote: > D

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

> Whats wrong with this please? I'm guessing something is now incompatible with > the same config I've used for years. Happens on all 3 servers, all of which > just got the Fedora 23->24 update. > > Here is the error: > > [root@sabbath sbin]# ./bacula-sd -d -c /etc/bacula/bacula-fd.conf -u root

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Hello You are using the wrong command. The correct is: bacula-sd -d 200 -c /etc/bacula/bacula-sd.conf -u root -g root Best Regards Wanderlei Hüttel Enviado de Motorola Moto X2 Em 3 de jul de 2016 7:18 AM, "bdam" escreveu: > Whats wrong with this please? I'm guessing something is now incompatib

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 24 (bacula 7.4.1) gives error in bacula-sd.conf

Well, that is exactly what is expected. If you execute the storage daemon and give it a File daemon's conf file, it will get upset. Best regards, Kern On 07/03/2016 12:12 PM, bdam wrote: > Whats wrong with this please? I'm guessing something is now incompatible with > the same config I've used

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS backports

Simone Caronni kirjoitti 25.1.2016 23:02: > Hello list, > > just a recap as I've not written much for quite a long time. I'm the > maintainer of the Bacula packages in Fedora, and I've just updated the Bacula > backports repository to version 7.4.0. Being a simple increment on 7.2.0, > I'

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

Many Thanks for the fix :) On 02/25/2013 03:30 AM, Simone Caronni wrote: On 25 February 2013 09:14, Simone Caronni > wrote: Restore /etc/bacula to the default permissions + bacula group: chown -R root:root /etc/bacula chgrp bacula /etc/bacula \

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

I'm having the same issue as Timo; After upgrading from 5.2.12 >> 5.2.13 Backup my catalog results in error (error below) Everything worked fine before the upgrade, i even revert to a snapshot (VM) i had before i upgraded just to make sure, i didnt make any permissions change prior to the u

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

On 25 February 2013 11:22, Timo Neuvonen wrote > I need to admit I couldn't right now follow why this solved it. > But yes, it did solve the problem :-) > It took me some time, in fact :) The director start as root, reads the config file and forks with bacula:bacula. After that, to be able to

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

> "Simone Caronni" kirjoitti > viestissä:camougsbhtyyjfyti5f67ut7wpvub-wzdr3g3znxaajxzmqk...@mail.gmail.com... > On 25 February 2013 09:14, Simone Caronni wrote: > > Restore /etc/bacula to the default permissions + bacula group: > > chown -R root:root /etc/bacula > chgrp bacula /etc/bacula \ >

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

On 25 February 2013 09:14, Simone Caronni wrote: > Restore /etc/bacula to the default permissions + bacula group: > > chown -R root:root /etc/bacula > chgrp bacula /etc/bacula \ > /etc/bacula/bacula-dir.conf > /etc/bacula/query.sql > Well, this should be better; same result but a

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

Hello, something has changed that is preventing this from working, the package has not changed in the last months regarding this. Can you please test the following? On 23 February 2013 21:57, Timo Neuvonen wrote: > I updated 5.2.12 -> 5.2.13 via 'yum update' from EPEL repo on CentOS 6 x64 > sys

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

Hello, On 23 February 2013 21:57, Timo Neuvonen wrote: > I updated 5.2.12 -> 5.2.13 via 'yum update' from EPEL repo on CentOS 6 x64 > system. > > A couple of issues: > > - storage daemon run as bacula:tape could not any more access the tape > changer owned by root:tape (660). > As a dirty fix I

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

> repository updated to 5.2.13. As usual; any feedback/problem report is > appreciated > > Regards, > --Simone I updated 5.2.12 -> 5.2.13 via 'yum update' from EPEL repo on CentOS 6 x64 system. A couple of issues: - storage daemon run as bacula:tape could not any more access the tape changer

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/RHEL/CentOS repository

Hello, On 15 February 2013 16:36, Simone Caronni wrote: > the Fedora / RHEL / CentOS repository has been updated with a couple of > small fixes related to the RHEL 7 branching, and as of today, Fedora 16 has > been removed as it's End of Life. > > Fedora 17 and 18 packages are identical to those

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora - RHEL/CentOS rpm repository

Hello, I'm pushing another update (5.2.7-4.fc17) to the repository, some bugs were discovered in Fedora. In this build, the bacula-sd has changed group: - RHEL 5 = bacula-sd runs as bacula/disk - RHEL 6 / Fedora = bacula-sd runs as bacula/tape Latest patch for bug 1874 - Thanks to Marco a job ru

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora - RHEL/CentOS rpm repository

Hi, Am 06.06.2012 20:23, schrieb Simone Caronni: > I'm pushing now to the repository an update with the changes > (5.2.7-3), please remove your old symlink with these commands if you > have multiple alternatives: Great, thanks a lot! -- Tilman Schmidt Phoenix Software GmbH Bonn, Germany sign

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora - RHEL/CentOS rpm repository

Hello, I'm pushing now to the repository an update with the changes (5.2.7-3), please remove your old symlink with these commands if you have multiple alternatives: alternatives --remove /usr/lib64/libbaccats-mysql-5.2.6.so alternatives --remove /usr/lib64/libbaccats-sqlite3-5.2.6.so alternatives

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora - RHEL/CentOS rpm repository

Hello, you're right, there's a mistake in the packaging. The symlink should not point to the backend versioned lib but to the generic one. Instead of: # cd /etc/alternatives # ls -lgh libbaccats* lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root 38 Jun 6 18:41 libbaccats-5.2.7.so -> /usr/lib64/ libbaccats-sqlite3-5.2.7.so lrw

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora - RHEL/CentOS rpm repository

Hello Simone, I had a bit of trouble with that update on a CentOS 6 server that had been running fine with Bacula 5.2.6 from the same repo. After the update, the director wouldn't start, complaining that it couldn't find its database. It turned out that the alternatives where completely hosed. The

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello, please have a look at the readme file at: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/README.txt there's this note: ** The included /usr/share/doc/bacula-common-%{version}/README.Fedora contains quick installation instructions and notes ** You'll find your quick answer by readin

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

It is now working for RHEL 5; it was a problem of the different default algorithm used by yum: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-January/365300.html Please type the following as root and try again: rm -fr /var/cache/yum/epel-bacula/ Thanks, --Simone On 2 January 2012 13:14,

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

I'm installing a RHEL 4 and 5 vm right now for spotting problems. Thanks, --Simone On 2 January 2012 12:47, Rodrigo Renie Braga wrote: > Hello Simone, just to give you a feedback: I've tried again on a i386 > CentOS 5.7 box and the problem persists: > > *[root@ptiap yum.repos.d]# yum --enabler

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello Simone, just to give you a feedback: I've tried again on a i386 CentOS 5.7 box and the problem persists: *[root@ptiap yum.repos.d]# yum --enablerepo epel update Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Determining fastest mirrors * epel: mirror.symnds.com base | 1.

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello, I've checked the checksums on the files and everything seems correct. The weird thing is the second message you get, "Error: file is encrypted or is not a database"; I''ve never seen that message. The next thing is that appears after "updates/primary_db"; so it doesn't seem related to the

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Simone, I'm trying to use your repository on a CentOS 5.7 adm64 machine, and "yum update" returns the following: Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Determining fastest mirrors addons | 951 B 00:00 addons/primary | 204 B 00:00 base | 1.1 kB 00:00 base/primary | 1.2 MB 00:00 base 3566

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Ah, thanks, I'd missed that you had updated the RPMs on fedorapeople.org. __Martin > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:16:29 +0100, Simone Caronni said: > > Hello, > > fedora-usermgmt adds 33 + the "baseuid" defined in his config files, the > latest RPM without it uses 133 as a static uid. > > Regar

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello, fedora-usermgmt adds 33 + the "baseuid" defined in his config files, the latest RPM without it uses 133 as a static uid. Regards, --Simone On Dec 20, 2011 8:53 PM, "Martin Simmons" wrote: > I'm probably confused, but why is the rpm adding user/group 33, rather than > 133? > > __Martin >

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

I'm probably confused, but why is the rpm adding user/group 33, rather than 133? __Martin > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:56:15 +0100, Simone Caronni said: > > Sorry, those are the basis for fedora-usermgmt generation, the static > uids associated with services can be found inside the "setup" pac

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Sorry, those are the basis for fedora-usermgmt generation, the static uids associated with services can be found inside the "setup" package on any system. i.e. on my Fedora system: [slaanesh@3zpc0560 ~]$ rpm -qd setup /usr/share/doc/setup-2.8.36/COPYING /usr/share/doc/setup-2.8.36/uidgid [slaanes

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello, what do you mean "it is a pratical joke or a time bomb"? In the links I've pasted there's also the Fedora "user registry" for uids/gids, it is at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageUserRegistry Remember this is a Fedora package and not a package for everyone, so it follows those guide

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Op 20111215 om 16:40 schreef Joseph L. Casale: > >It is not a requirement but a recommendation inside the Fedora > >packaging guidelines: > > Right:) Not EL requirements. > > >I could try to remove that and put standard useradd / userdel > >commands, but I need to assess the change with the other

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

>It is not a requirement but a recommendation inside the Fedora >packaging guidelines: Right:) Not EL requirements. >I could try to remove that and put standard useradd / userdel >commands, but I need to assess the change with the other Bacula >mantainers and good reasons to do so. >Is there any

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Hello, I've updated the package on top of what is currently in Fedora. In there we have this post scriptlet: %pre common /usr/sbin/fedora-groupadd 33 -r bacula &>/dev/null || : /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd 33 -r -s /sbin/nologin -d /var/spool/bacula -M \ -c 'Bacula Backup System' -g bacula

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

> I'm happy to address all the package issues people might encounter and > I'm available to ideas or constructive criticism regarding choices or > features missing. > When I will get enough feedback that the approach used inside the > package is right I will try to see if some patches could be i

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

Fixed, sorry. You can anyway pass --disablegpg to yum to avoid the key checking. Regards, --Simone On 14 December 2011 16:27, Erik P. Olsen wrote: > On 06/12/11 17:06, Simone Caronni wrote: > >> >> I'm hosting the repository at: >> >> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/ > > >

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

On 06/12/11 17:06, Simone Caronni wrote: > > I'm hosting the repository at: > > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/ I have no permission to http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/RPM-GPG-KEY-slaanesh so I can't install the packages. Could you please correct it. -

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

On 14.12.2011 11:50, Simone Caronni wrote: >> I'm trying to use epel-5 repository on Centos 5.2, but I get this error: >> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/epel-5/i386/repodata/2472fc8e3db92dc60426193ee172a9e6c7c0d6619f980d1ed5f16d79cc10b48a-primary.sqlite.gz: >> [Errno -3] Error

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

> I'm trying to use epel-5 repository on Centos 5.2, but I get this error: > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/epel-5/i386/repodata/2472fc8e3db92dc60426193ee172a9e6c7c0d6619f980d1ed5f16d79cc10b48a-primary.sqlite.gz: > [Errno -3] Error performing checksum > > I am not an über yum m

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

On 06.12.2011 18:06, Simone Caronni wrote: > Hello, > > the company I was working for has been a Bacula customer for some > years and went through many iterations with the Bacula developer > themselves to fix and change the Enterprise Edition behaviour when we > moved away from the Community Ver

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 16 - RHEL 5/6 Bacula RPM repository

You're welcome! I'm updating right now RHEL 6 packages and I've added RHEL 4 packages. Let me know if you have any issue. Regards, --Simone On 7 December 2011 14:48, Rodrigo Renie Braga wrote: > This is AWESOME, thank you very much! > > 2011/12/6 Simone Caronni > >> Hello, >> >> the compa

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 12 build error with bacula 3.0.3

On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 00:03 +0100, francisco javier funes nieto wrote: > Maybe OpenSSL-Dev libs ? > I replied to OP off list that it seems pointless to build directly from source when the source rpms are so simple to use but looking at the spec file that I used from 2.4.3 (Fedora 9 was the la

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 12 build error with bacula 3.0.3

Maybe OpenSSL-Dev libs ? J. 2009/11/21 Bill Damage : > > > > [r...@tiger bacula-3.0.3]# uname -r > 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE > I've a new Fed 12 installation and find make fails. It was fine with Fed 11 > but that was a while ago and I seem to remember no proble

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/CentOS rpms for 2.2.6 available

Just a short update: Fedora 5 RPMs are online since last week. RPMs for Fedora 8 are currently blocked due to a glibc 2.7 issue. I'm still investigating this (help welcome as always ;-). fs - SF.Net email is sponsored by

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/CentOS RPMs for 2.2.4 published

In the message dated: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:15:43 +0200, The pithy ruminations from Felix Schwarz on were: => Mark, => => Mark Nienberg wrote: => > Sourceforge shows that your version 2.0.3 for fedora 5 had: => > => > 312 downloads for the client, => > 221 downloads for mysql, => > 130 downloads

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/CentOS RPMs for 2.2.4 published

Mark, Mark Nienberg wrote: > Sourceforge shows that your version 2.0.3 for fedora 5 had: > > 312 downloads for the client, > 221 downloads for mysql, > 130 downloads for postgre, and > 140 downloads for sqlite > for a total of 803 (combining i386 and x86_64). But these RPMs were built in April 20

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/CentOS RPMs for 2.2.4 published

Felix Schwarz wrote: > No Fedora 5: > I did not build RPMs for Fedora 5 because the Fedora Project eol'd this > version > of Fedora at the end of June [1]. If you are still using Fedora 5 (or even > older > versions) IMHO you should switch either to new versions of Fedora or use > CentOS > i

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 7 rpms

Alan Brown schrieb: > There's an RFE (Feature request) in with Redhat for inclusion of Bacula in > RHEL4 and 5. I filed that in January. Short update: Fedora EPEL is not RHEL but Bacula is now in Fedora EPEL 5 so if you use RHEL 5 or CentOS 5, there are binaries for you :-) fs ---

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 7 rpms

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:13:57 +0200 Felix Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, definitely. > Sorry for the long delay in creating F7 bacula rpms, I needed bigger hard > drives > to create new virtual machines for building F7 rpms. I will publish new rpms > sometime next week. > Additionally

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora 7 rpms

Dimitrios schrieb: > Are there any plans to create Fedora 7 rpms on one of the popular fedora > repositories, like Freshrpms.net, Livna, fedora extras, etc? Yes, definitely. Sorry for the long delay in creating F7 bacula rpms, I needed bigger hard drives to create new virtual machines for build

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora core RPMs

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Chris Rodgers schrieb: >> In case anyone finds them useful, I built a set of RPMs of Bacula 2.0 >> for Fedora Core. They are available at http://rodgers.org.uk/ . I >> presume that "proper" RPMs will become available soon. > > RPMs for FC5 (i386, x86_64)

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora core RPMs

Chris Rodgers schrieb: > In case anyone finds them useful, I built a set of RPMs of Bacula 2.0 > for Fedora Core. They are available at http://rodgers.org.uk/ . I > presume that "proper" RPMs will become available soon. RPMs for FC5 (i386, x86_64), FC6 (i386, x86_64), EL4 (i386, x86_64) will be

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

On Thursday 09 November 2006 01:46, G. Armour Van Horn wrote: > I hope whoever is maintaining the RPM build will eventually read this! This doesn't have anything to do with the RPM. It is a PostgreSQL installation/configuration issue. In a sense, it isn't even a Bacula issue. If I am not mist

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

I hope whoever is maintaining the RPM build will eventually read this! Solution has been found! Van Martin Simmons wrote: On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:37:26 -0800, G Armour Van Horn said: Martin Simmons

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

> Is anyone else using this combination, RPMs and PostreSQL? Yes, but I'm on Mandriva and the postgress setup was done by the rpm, so I don't have experience in debugging this. I could share some config info if that could help Steen Mandag 06 november 2006 20:02 skrev G. Armour Van Horn: > I'

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:37:26 -0800, G Armour Van Horn said: > > Martin Simmons wrote: > > >>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:16:09 -0800, G Armour Van Horn said: > >> > >> > >>Scott, I hope you don't mind but I'm taking this back to the list, I > >>really would like as many f

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

Martin Simmons wrote: On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:16:09 -0800, G Armour Van Horn said: Scott, I hope you don't mind but I'm taking this back to the list, I really would like as many folks looking at thi

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:16:09 -0800, G Armour Van Horn said: > > Scott, I hope you don't mind but I'm taking this back to the list, I > really would like as many folks looking at this as possible, and if we > figure it out the solution should end up in the list archive. > > Scott Simpson w

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

Scott, I hope you don't mind but I'm taking this back to the list, I really would like as many folks looking at this as possible, and if we figure it out the solution should end up in the list archive. Scott Simpson wrote: On Tuesday 07 November 2006 11:58 am, you wrote: All of th

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora RPM Install

On Monday 06 November 2006 11:02 am, G. Armour Van Horn wrote: > I used the RPMs for FC5 and PostgreSQL. The problems seem to relate to > not being able to connect to PostgreSQL, which is running, so Bacula > Director does not start. What exactly is the problem? I'm running bacula and PostgreSQL a

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

Josh Fisher; Gordon Larsen > >Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora > > > >On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: > >> Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of > > > >bacula-rescue, > > > >> which will not work with a 2.6

RE: [Bacula-users] Fedora

>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Kern Sibbald >Sent: October 9, 2005 2:49 PM >To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net >Cc: Josh Fisher; Gordon Larsen >Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora > > >On S

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

On Monday 10 October 2005 23:34, Josh Fisher wrote: > Kern Sibbald wrote: > >On Monday 10 October 2005 18:29, Josh Fisher wrote: > >>Kern Sibbald wrote: > >>>On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: > Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, > which w

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

Kern Sibbald wrote: On Monday 10 October 2005 18:29, Josh Fisher wrote: Kern Sibbald wrote: On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, which will not work with a 2.6

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

On Monday 10 October 2005 18:29, Josh Fisher wrote: > Kern Sibbald wrote: > >On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: > >>Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, > >>which will not work with a 2.6.x kernel. You need to grab the latest > >>1.37.x development

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

Kern Sibbald wrote: On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, which will not work with a 2.6.x kernel. You need to grab the latest 1.37.x development version of bacula-rescue from CVS. You do not have t

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

On Sunday 09 October 2005 22:27, Josh Fisher wrote: > Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, > which will not work with a 2.6.x kernel. You need to grab the latest > 1.37.x development version of bacula-rescue from CVS. You do not have to > use 1.37.x versions of the

Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora

Sounds like you are using the 1.36.3 stable version of bacula-rescue, which will not work with a 2.6.x kernel. You need to grab the latest 1.37.x development version of bacula-rescue from CVS. You do not have to use 1.37.x versions of the other bacula programs, just the bacula-rescue module. Yo