-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi John,
Am Mi den 10. Feb 2010 um 20:38 schrieb John Goerzen: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:04:10AM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > I set the severity to important as the upgrade fails with existing > > databases. [...] > I have tested the upgrade path from 2.4.4-1 (the version in lenny) to > 5.0.0-2 (the version now in sid). I have tested it from both the > Sqlite v2 and the Sqlite v3 director, and while there was a small > glitch in upstream's upgrade code relating to dropping a non-existing > index, the upgrade process DID run, and I WAS asked if it should. So > I am rather confused by the assertion that there is no upgrade code. Well, I was updating from version 3.xxx to the new version. As the 2.4 version is pretty old I think there are many people out there using the 3.x version in production. Additional, the debconf message just gives the options to create the database or to _not_ create it. There is no option to choose if you want to upgrade or not. When you choose not to create the database (cause you know it is existing and you don't want to destroy it) then the daemon will not start. If you choose to create the database and change all the questions afterwards to the correct paths (/var/lib/bacula.db, I use sqlite(3) as I told) then the postinstall will throw many errors on the stdout (or - -err, I don't know exact) telling this table still exists and that index still exists and so on. After the last experiment I restored the old database, loaded the original .tar.gz and converted the database with the script from bacula itself and then it was working correct. (However, there is one warning in the original script about the not existing index. But if you look at the code that is documented. It is not beautiful but ok.) > Contrary to your message, there *is* code in bacula-director-sqlite3 > to perform this upgrade, and it will ask you if you wish it to do so. I was not asked about. I only had the choose to create the database or not. > This is handled via the dbconfig-common infrastructure. By the way, the dbconfig-common package seems to be in a very bad state as ucf throws a big warning about using it the wrong way. However, that is only about the later created config file and it still works, that is only a warning. > It should be noted that upgrades from 3.x to 5.0 will not be really > supported by the package, since 5.x will migrate to testing before > squeeze is released. However, I see no reason why it should have > failed. As I told above, I think there are many people out there still using the version 3.x. Another reason is that upstream dropped support for the 2.x version long ago and forced users to use the 3.x version. Additional if I read correct the upstream only official support update from 3.x to 5.0. No earlier versions are supported. > Your debconf settings below indicate that you assented to the upgrade > (or that this was your default action, depending on your debconf > settings). Therefore, I would like to see a copy of the terminal > output that happens during your upgrade attempt, and to know what > version of bacula-director-sqlite3 you upgraded from, as everything > you've said suggests to me that the upgrade should have worked. Unfortunately I have not saved the terminal output. It is a productive setting and I am not able to go back and forth. But on the terminal was many errors about still existing tables/indexes like I told above. I was uptating from 3.0.3-2 to 5.0.0-2. > > As you can see below I did try both but the new creation trows many > > errors and I had to restore the database to convert it with the script > > from the source. > > I'm not sure what information these comments pertain to -- can you > clarify? Well, I downloaded the source from bacula web site, located the conversion script (a .in script so I had to edit it first with some defaults) and run that script. > > APT prefers stable > > APT policy: (800, 'stable'), (700, 'oldstable'), (600, 'unstable'), (60, > > 'experimental') > > Architecture: i386 (i686) > > Given this rather complex apt policy, I would also like to know the > exact commands you used to upgrade Bacula. apt-get update; apt-get upgrade The setup is not that complex. I prefer stable but I have some hand upgraded packages from sid. This hand upgraded packages will receive updates from sid and all other from stable. bacula is one of that forced sid packages as the 2.4 version lags in many features I need. Namely the most important is ssl support but there are others too. Also if you ask the bacula people about a special problem they "force" you to update to the latest stable (which was 3.0). Regards Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.de/ pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <[email protected]> Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBS3RdU5+OKpjRpO3lAQr0xggAoSt3Mz/QLFgYCf4sgLj3tWqkE27Jj2OP nrwX2rNergCQqHO4r+NlZauobDIKdZR1uPvdQPxQBY+4ofeZ0qznBuRKT08T0Fi0 OYiC1xGUR/dk5g9dmUqTz97Xx+gsSJDx4wPmBk2Fl1SEdnAPBDSEETD002SDqHnd V2iVCpMdhd8bssgdcPbb+I1ifH8uL8/4RTwolyfL036VSJVDmqvLuhjgUl0LpeGq XS38BJxGSS8Xjf/9Emm6YMEcs7MqI8UiWZJ+XtqG2OIRuO3oRqATrxHwCenUPuet yO62j5fR4bQC30ZRlMAzwcaFJdq48hjEJXV6IorgqtV7YesPkoBcBQ== =YMwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
