Bdale Garbee wrote: > We discussed briefly rolling fresher Amanda into etch and decided it was > not worth the risk. I would like to re-visit the idea for an etch point > release... moving etch to Amanda 2.5.1p3 would be a good move in my > opinion.
There are many code changes, the ones I reviewed looked like fixes, though it's too much to review IMHO. I would consider a version with targetted fixes though. Cheers Luk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Bug#424048: amanda-server: amrecover excessively slow if index files > contain '"' or '\' > From: > Dave Ewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: > Tue, 15 May 2007 16:56:08 +0100 > To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Tuesday, 15.05.2007 at 09:37 -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > >> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:39 +0100, Dave Ewart wrote: >>> According to >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.archivers.amanda.devel/1875 this >>> is a known problem and is fixed in version 2.5.1p2 (although 2.5.1p3 >>> is now available). >> Any chance you could try the 2.5.1p3 packages currently in unstable? >> We had some 11th-hour discussion about the versions of tar and amanda >> that should be in etch, but frankly, the changes weren't clearly worth >> the risk of destabilizing the release. If we're going to consider >> rolling this in a point release, it would be good to know if the >> problem is definitely fixed. > > Installing 2.5.1p3-2 does indeed fix this particular problem, yes. I > should have made that clear in my original report. I took the 2.5.1p3-2 > packages from Lenny, today. > > The 2.5.1p3-2/Lenny packages have the same non-AMANDA dependencies as > those in Etch, so this was a fairly easy change. > > Dave. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
