Comment 20 for bug 227613

On Saturday 27 September 2008 09:45:11 Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:36:41 -0000
>
> Kern Sibbald <email address hidden> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 September 2008 20:04:18 Ante Karamatić wrote:
> >
> > "The upstream bug has not been fixed in 2.2.8!!"
>
> I haven't said that :)

OK, no problem. I didn't take offense, hope you didn't, but just wanted to
clarify.

>
> > The bug *was* fixed in the 2.2.8 version with two patches. Did you
> > apply them?
>
> We have 2.2.8 version in Ubuntu 8.04, and this bug is filed for 2.2.8.
> I think it was fixed later in bacula, not in 2.2.8...

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.

In any case, what is clear to me is that we have no problems in the 2.4.x base
with this bug and that the 2.4.0 was pulled from the last 2.2.8 and that no
additional strippath changes were made in the 2.4.x versions.

>
> > If not an easy way to fix it is to take src/dird/backup.c from either
> > the last commit to Branch-2.2 or from the current released code
> > (Branch-2.4) rather than trying to apply the patches.
>
> I guess you are referring to src/filed/backup.c? If yes, that file is
> exactly the same in my PPA version and in 2.4.2.

Yes, sorry. I should have said src/filed/backup.c

>
> src/dird/backup.c has more differences, but I don't think those are
> relevant for this bug.

Yes, you are correct.

>
> We'll wait for Sergio to test my PPA version.

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 ...

By the way, what does PPA mean and where does one find those versions?

Thanks ...