Re: Bug#496174: bacula probably needs unblocking

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>]

Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> today I was diving through the list of rc bugs and stumbled across
> #496174. Appearently there has been an unblock request by luk for
> version 2.4.2-3 of this package. But in the meantime there has been an
> upload 2.4.2-3.1. Additional to that I would like to note, that the
> changelog of 2.4.2-3 is sort of cryptic (some "applied upstream patch"
> entries) and its not really possible for outstanding persons to say
> weither the upload was intended for lenny or not.

Hi Patrick,

Initially, I had submitted an unblock request for 2.4.2-1, which was
acted upon.  I don't recall sending in a request for 2.4.2-3, but I
might have.  No Debian users reported bugs, but all patches in 2.4.2-3
are bugfix-only patches fixed by upstream after users submitted bugs
upstream.  I have high confidence in the stability of these upstream
patches, which are posted on the SourceForge download page as interim
patches to fix issues before the next release comes out.

You can see more details about each patch here:

  http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jgoerzen/bacula

Clicking on "commit" for each one will show the log message from upstream.

The patches in 2.4.2-3 address some bugs that could cause crashes of
Bacula in certain obscure corner cases.   2.4.2-2 has some changes to
translations that would be nice to have, but non-cricitical.

I have been quite busy in the last couple of weeks and have not had the
chance to evaluate the patch in 2.4.2-3.1, but from looking at the
comments in the bug, it looks like it has been tested.

I would recommend at least 2.4.2-3 into lenny, if not 2.4.2-3.1 as well.

-- John