Re: [Fwd: Bug#402221: fixed in amanda 1:2.5.1p3-1]
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 06:16:16PM +0000, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Allowing the updated Amanda packages into etch would probably be a good
> idea. I don't think there are any odd dependencies on them that are
> likely to cause trouble.
What is the tar behavior change that's an issue here, and how severe is the
bug resulting from it?
We're looking at about a 6kloc upstream diff against testing, which is quite
a bit more than I'm comfortable making an exception for.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
> From: Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>
> To: 402221@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Bug#402221: fixed in amanda 1:2.5.1p3-1
> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:22:28 -0800
> X-Spam-Score: -2.598
> Reply-To: Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>, 402221@bugs.debian.org
> Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
> X-Debian-PR-Source: amanda
>
> Can we expect this update to migrate into testing soon?
>
> The versions of tar and amanda in testing conspire to make backups of
> busy systems a problem due to tar's behavior change when it comes to
> changed files. 2.5.1p3 fixes amanda to cope with this change.
>
> According to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=amanda it
> hasn't migrated automatically due to amanda being considered 'frozen' in
> testing. It says to contact debian-release if an update is needed. I
> figured that'd work better if it came from the package owner.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
Reply to: