Hi, Miles Thompson wrote on 24.05.2007 at 12:25:02 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Time to upgrade from 2.1.2?]: > I found a BackupPC 3.0.0 .deb for Ubuntu, but it was for Gutsy. > > First of all I tried adding gutsy to the end of my sources.list, > updating and forcing an install with > apt-get install -f -t gutsy install backuppc > but the beast would have none of that and just told me I had the latest > version.
I usually do something like 'apt-get install backuppc=3.0.0-3' (adjust for the exact version you're expecting). I've also seen release names 'stable', 'testing' etc. work better than 'sarge', 'etch', 'lenny' (that's for Debian, of course). Recently, I've rather being avoiding the issue altogether, though. > Then I backed up my sources.list and edited it to fetch for gutsy, > instead of edgy and ran apt-get update and tried > apt-get install backuppc > and the beast was willing, but I wasn't as a lot of base components were > going to be installed. And gutsy is not ready for prime time. That surprises me a bit, but I guess apt-get might try to update the dependencies even if not strictly required. Or maybe there was a new dependency to a binary package (like bzip2 in the Debian case) which in consequence pulled in the usual libraries, which could well have been fulfilled within edgy though (any 'new packages', or only 'updated packages'?). > So, other than doing a dpkg -i on a downloaded .deb, which could keep > me v. busy chasing dependencies, My experience with backuppc_3.0.0-3 from Debian sid, installed into Debian sarge, was that there were none that were not already satisfied (meaning 'dpkg -i' installed cleanly without needing an 'apt-get -f install'). You can check the dependencies beforehand with something like ... ! % dpkg-deb -f backuppc_3.0.0-3_all.deb depends ! perl, libdigest-md5-perl, libcompress-zlib-perl, libarchive-zip-perl, tar (>> 1.13), adduser (>= 3.9), dpkg (>= 1.8.3), apache (>> 1.3) | apache-ssl | apache-perl | apache2 | httpd, wwwconfig-common, perl-suid, debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, smbclient, samba-common | samba-tng-common, exim4 | sendmail | postfix | mail-transport-agent, bzip2 For the installed package, 'apt-cache show backuppc | grep Depends' will show you much the same information. For changed dependencies, you can check with 'dpkg -l pkgname' or 'apt-cache policy pkgname' which version is or would be installed. Or simply install the 3.0.0 package and have the current one available as deb in case you need to go back to it because a dependency wasn't resolvable. Or even try 'dpkg --no-act -i backuppc_3.0.0-3_all.deb' and see what would happen without actually doing it. The one versioned dependency I wasn't expecting was to debconf, which goes to show there might be surprises even for a package where the change in the package itself (BackupPC 2.1.2 -> 3.0.0) would not have you expect any. > I guess I'll just waste some disk > space and accept that some directories will inadvertently be picked up > from the desktops. Well, like I said, I updated only for the sake of the experience, not because I was having any trouble from 2.1.1 :-). One thing to note though: I'm not using the rsync transfer, so I didn't update libfile-rsyncp-perl, which *is* an architecture dependent package and thus probably dependent on libc from sid/gutsy. I'm not sure if BackupPC 3.0.0 will work correctly with File::RsyncP < 0.68. There's no 'conflicts' in backuppc/sid, so apt won't prevent such a combination. I'm wondering if that's correct ... Regards, Holger ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
