On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:55 -0000 Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, no problem. I didn't take offense, hope you didn't, but just > wanted to clarify. Of course not. > The bug in the main Bacula 2.2.8 Branch HEAD is fixed because the > code is identical to the current 2.4.2 code. That is if 2.2.8 is > fully and correctly patched with the released patches, it should have > this bug and others fixed. It is possible that there were confusions > with the patches in getting from the first 2.2.8 to the version that > is in the SVN. Oh! Mea culpa... I didn't know 2.2.8 is still getting patches. I'm checking out source as I write this... > OK, if you have a 2.2.8 src/filed/backup.c that is the same as on > 2.4.2, then the bug *should* be fixed. If not, I will be worried ... I've seen your comments on bug in bacula buglist, but we really need Sergio to confirm this. Thank you for the info! -- [SRU] SIGSEGV in bacula-fd https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/227613 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
