[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora's Amanda mispackaged? (was: Re: Backing up whole system)



On Monday 11 May 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:

I said I was done with this thread but I'll issue a challange:

>On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:32:24 -0400, Gene wrote:
>> I wasn't trying to 'glorify' my lack of knowledge, I readily admit it cuz
>> everytime I get rpm figured out so it will build from a src package, the
>> API changes with the next version of this hat.
>
>Really? Sounds unusual. RPM .spec files are only a bit more than [and a bit
>different than] shell scripts. Shell scripts as admins use them to automate
>the step-by-step building'n'installing of software from source archives.
>Don't say you never save the steps (or parts of the shell's history) in
>order to reuse them for future builds.

Not really.  Boring and repetitive operations such as that get consigned to 
scripts with a chmod +x applied.  Call me country boy lazy I guess, but not 
stupid.

>> However, this conversation demos that everyone has their own favorite
>> sacred cow.  Yumex/yum/rpm is a good tool indeed when it works.
>
>?  Let's not mix RPM with Yum and with other tools based on Yum's API.
>Primary question is whether Fedora's Amanda package is working fine or
>whether it suffers from issues? Problems with package management tools may
>be completely separate.
>
>> I presume the acid test would be for me to install your 2.6.0p2 and see if
>> it works tonight, using my existing configuration.
>
>Are they compatible? Is 2.6.0p2 only "ancient" (as you call it) or is it
>significantly different from the 2.6.2alpha snapshot you refer to? Are
>the configuration files (and their locations) compatible?

All amanda versions have been compatible except for 2 steps in the amanda 
history.  There was a break ISTR at 2.1 or so over a decade ago, and another 
at 2.5 about 4 or 5 years ago.

>You may need to eradicate all your custom configuration prior to starting
>from scratch with Fedora's packages. Else it may not be feasible for
>other people to reproduce issues you run into.

Taint gonna happen.  It runs the way I have it setup, or not at all. I have no 
intentions of destroying 30 days of legacy backups I might need tomorrow just 
to placate your ego.

>> But obviously it won't just install and run, since an su amanda -c
>> "amcheck Daily" after the install reports no problems, and used version
>> 2.6.2alpha-20090505.  So I had yumex remove it.
>>
>> And removing it did screw things up.  It removed my /etc/xinetd.d/amanda
>> config file.
>
>Unmodified configuration files may be removed by RPM as no harm is done
>by doing that. RPM doesn't care about files not belonging into any package
>in the local RPM database.
>
>> You may want to file a bug, the config files really should not be touched
>> if they are found to exist at install, and left untouched if there is an
>> .rpmnew version there.
>
>This is not how RPM works. It never has worked like that.
>The .rpm{new,save,orig} mechanism only works with files tracked in the
>local RPM database.

Ahh, but that is how it should work.  I see no reason I should have to do a 
chattr +i on stuff that needs protection from rpm.  But in fact I have  
several so marked, including that file as of now.

You may be able to alleviate that by giving us a working 
/usr/local/etc/xinetd.d directory that xinetd searches first at bootup time, 
just like the present $PATH order, so there won't be any conflicts.  That file 
BTW was not equal to the one in the rpm as I had hand carved it several years 
ago.

>> So where does the rpm install it?  Should it not find stuff in /bin before
>> it looks in /usr/bin?  And in /usr/lib before it looks in /usr/local/lib
>> (or libexec).??
>
>rpm --query --list amanda

not installed.

>Please present step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce problems
>with Fedora's Amanda packages.

Here, or on the amanda-users list where such a conversation would be much more  
germane?  We had an rpm 'expert', from the fedora camp, show up on that list 3 
or so years ago, said he was the packager and promised to 'fix' the perceived 
packaging problems of amanda.  We explained what we thought were the problems 
at the time & he disappeared again without giving any of us a chance to try 
his 'fixed' packages, not willing to stick around and actually _use_ the code 
or take feedback.  That was, shall we say, much less than useful for all 
concerned.

My tarball's (for amanda) are always installed in /usr/local/*, your present 
rpms obviously do not, making a quick and dirty compatibility test less than 
useful as was shown before in this thread.

Many of amanda's options are in fact made at ./configure time, before make is 
invoked and no pre-built rpm will ever match that level of versatility.

Blind insistence that rpm is the best solution is equ to saying that one 
religion is the only true religion.  But we aren't into stoning for blasphemy, 
so we'll just agree to disagree.  See you (Michael Schwendt) on that list 
maybe, rather than boring this much busier list with what is to me and most 
other readers here, a useless diatribe about how perfect rpm is?  ISTM that 
you are more interested in seeing to it that nothing 'contaminates' the fedora 
legal climate than in seeing to it I can watch news videos with firefox.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The face of war has never changed.  Surely it is more logical to heal
than to kill.
		-- Surak of Vulcan, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.5


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]