Re: debian etch update broke amanda
Steve Wray wrote: Hi there, I am still trying to get to the bottom of this. I think I got to the bottom of this. You know how Debian never fixes bugs in the stable release unless its a security related bug? And how the amanda in Debian Etch was released to stable with the gtar bug? So that in order to have a working amanda/gtar in Debian Etch you have to use the amanda packages from the testing branch? Well, on the two servers that had this problem, the apt/sources.list entry pointing to testing was commented out. I'm not sure exactly how this actually ended up being applied because the dpkg.log shows NO changes to amanda packages, but after an apt-get upgrade these two servers ended up with the broken 'stable' version of amanda from Debian Etch. I replaced the 'stable' version with the one from 'testing' and it all seems good now. Stability. I love it and hate it at the same time. I have some servers running Debian Etch. They have been fine with amanda for a very long time now. I just ran an apt-get upgrade to apply some security patches and suddenly I'm getting the old file changed as we read it and error [/bin/tar returned 1] again. I'd hoped to see the last of this. The thing is, looking at the packages that apt-get upgrade installed I have no idea why this should have happened: 2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libisc11 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libdns22 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccc0 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccfg1 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libbind9-0 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed liblwres9 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed bind9-host 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed dnsutils 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libapr1 1.2.7-9 2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed libaprutil1 1.2.7+dfsg-2+etch3 2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed apache2-utils 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:12 status installed apache2.2-common 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2-mpm-worker 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libopenssl-ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libxml2 2.6.27.dfsg-6+etch1 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 This seems to make little sense. Package: amanda-client Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: utils Installed-Size: 288 Maintainer: Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com Architecture: i386 Source: amanda Version: 1:2.5.1p1-2.1 Package: tar Essential: yes Status: install ok installed Priority: required Section: utils Installed-Size: 1576 Maintainer: Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com Architecture: i386 Version: 1.16-2etch1 Yeah at some stage this should go to a Debian list, but I feel that I need to do more figuring out yet. -- Please remember that an email is just like a postcard; it is not confidential nor private nor secure and can be read by many other people than the intended recipient. A postcard can be read by anyone at the mail sorting office and expecting what is written on it to be private and secret is not realistic. Please hold no higher expectation of email. If you need to send confidential information in an email you need to use encryption. PGP is Pretty good for this.
Re: debian etch update broke amanda
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:53:34 +1200, Steve Wray wrote: I have some servers running Debian Etch. They have been fine with amanda for a very long time now. I just ran an apt-get upgrade to apply some security patches and suddenly I'm getting the old file changed as we read it and error [/bin/tar returned 1] again. I'd hoped to see the last of this. [...] Package: amanda-client [...] Version: 1:2.5.1p1-2.1 Package: tar [...] Version: 1.16-2etch1 It sounds like you ran into this same problem some time earlier. Did you make any changes at that time in order to get things working? When I faced this problem as part of upgrading to Etch, it seemed that the only (reasonable) solution was to upgrade the amanda-client package to version 2.5.1p2 or later. (See, for example, http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/FAQ:What_versions_of_GNU_Tar_are_Amanda-compatible%3F .) We ended up just pulling the 1:2.5.1p3-2 package out of Sid and putting it into a local repository to use in place of the one in Etch. So, in short, unless you changed something else to work around this problem, I wouldn't expect the two package versions you list above to work together correctly... On the other hand, this incomptibility only causes a problem if some files actually change while tar is reading them, so on a quiet system the plain Etch packages will sometimes run for long stretches without triggering this failure. What files are now triggering this issue on your machine? Could it be that the security updates you installed restarted some daemon that hadn't been running before (some daemon which is now updating its log file while tar is running), or something like that? Nathan Nathan Stratton Treadway - natha...@ontko.com - Mid-Atlantic region Ray Ontko Co. - Software consulting services - http://www.ontko.com/ GPG Key: http://www.ontko.com/~nathanst/gpg_key.txt ID: 1023D/ECFB6239 Key fingerprint = 6AD8 485E 20B9 5C71 231C 0C32 15F3 ADCD ECFB 6239
debian etch update broke amanda
Hi there, I am still trying to get to the bottom of this. I have some servers running Debian Etch. They have been fine with amanda for a very long time now. I just ran an apt-get upgrade to apply some security patches and suddenly I'm getting the old file changed as we read it and error [/bin/tar returned 1] again. I'd hoped to see the last of this. The thing is, looking at the packages that apt-get upgrade installed I have no idea why this should have happened: 2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libisc11 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:09 status installed libdns22 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccc0 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libisccfg1 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libbind9-0 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed liblwres9 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed bind9-host 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed dnsutils 1:9.3.4-2etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:10 status installed libapr1 1.2.7-9 2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed libaprutil1 1.2.7+dfsg-2+etch3 2009-08-20 09:17:11 status installed apache2-utils 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:12 status installed apache2.2-common 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2-mpm-worker 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:14 status installed apache2 2.2.3-4+etch10 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libopenssl-ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed libxml2 2.6.27.dfsg-6+etch1 2009-08-20 09:17:15 status installed ruby1.8 1.8.5-4etch5 This seems to make little sense. Package: amanda-client Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: utils Installed-Size: 288 Maintainer: Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com Architecture: i386 Source: amanda Version: 1:2.5.1p1-2.1 Package: tar Essential: yes Status: install ok installed Priority: required Section: utils Installed-Size: 1576 Maintainer: Bdale Garbee bd...@gag.com Architecture: i386 Version: 1.16-2etch1 Yeah at some stage this should go to a Debian list, but I feel that I need to do more figuring out yet. -- Please remember that an email is just like a postcard; it is not confidential nor private nor secure and can be read by many other people than the intended recipient. A postcard can be read by anyone at the mail sorting office and expecting what is written on it to be private and secret is not realistic. Please hold no higher expectation of email. If you need to send confidential information in an email you need to use encryption. PGP is Pretty good for this.
