[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#990421: marked as done (rdiff-backup protocol changed incompatible)

Your message dated Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:17:40 +0200
with message-id <10d4f5d1-f7b6-f775-b210-cc19c0bf24c4@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#990421: Bug#990379: unblock: rdiff-backup/2.0.5-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #990421,
regarding rdiff-backup protocol changed incompatible
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
990421: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990421
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Hello,

Please unblock package rdiff-backup

rdiff-backup is a sort of rsync-like backup tool. It happens that the
version that will be shipped in Bullseye (2.0.5) has a network protocol
that is incompatible with that of the version that was shipped in Buster
(1.2.8). The details are in https://bugs.debian.org/975270

What I thus did was to upload a 2.0.5 version to buster-backports, so
that people can safely independently upgrade the rdiff-backup package on
all their buster systems, before upgrading their systems to bullseye at
their convenience.

[ Reason ]
The changes proposed here is just to explain this in the NEWS file.

[ Impact ]
If the NEWS entry is not added, the users will have to google out why
they got their backup broken, or worse, not notice that their backup got
broken.

[ Tests ]
[ Risks ]
This is a documentation-only change.

[ Checklist ]
  [X] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [X] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [X] attach debdiff against the package in testing

unblock rdiff-backup/2.0.5-2

diff -Nru rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/changelog rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/changelog
--- rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/changelog	2020-08-06 05:36:34.000000000 +0200
+++ rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/changelog	2021-06-27 22:47:12.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+rdiff-backup (2.0.5-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * NEWS: Notify users that the network protocol of versions 1 and 2 of
+    rdiff-backup are incompatible (Closes: #975270).
+
+ -- Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org>  Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:47:12 +0200
+
 rdiff-backup (2.0.5-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   [ Otto Kekäläinen ]
diff -Nru rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/NEWS rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/NEWS
--- rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/NEWS	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ rdiff-backup-2.0.5/debian/NEWS	2021-06-27 22:47:12.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+rdiff-backup (2.0.5-2) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+    The network protocol of versions 1 and 2 of rdiff-backup are incompatible.
+    This means that you must be running the same version (either 1 or 2) of
+    rdiff-backup locally and remotely. Since Buster ships version 1.2.8 and
+    Bullseye ships version 2.0.5, upgrading only the local system or only the
+    remote system from Buster to Bullseye will break rdiff-backup runs between
+    the two.
+
+    For conveniency, version 2.0.5 of rdiff-backup is available in the
+    buster-backports distribution, see https://backports.debian.org/
+    This allows to first upgrade only the rdiff-backup package on Buster
+    systems, and then independently upgrade systems to Bullseye at your
+    convenience.
+
+ -- Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org>  Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:47:12 +0200
+
+

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 01-07-2021 01:19, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> As far as I know typically we refer to backports as an 'archive', 
> especially since it is an add-on for stable, so s/distribution/archive/, 
> otherwise it looks good to me, for what it's worth.

Thanks, and Vince too, for the review. Pushed.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: