Re: [Fwd: Bug#424048: amanda-server: amrecover excessively slow if index files contain '"' or '\']
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 <davee@ceu.ox.ac.uk>
> Date:
> Tue, 15 May 2007 16:56:08 +0100
> To:
> 424048@bugs.debian.org
>
> To:
> 424048@bugs.debian.org
>
>
> 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.
Reply to: