Comment 22 for bug 227613

On Saturday 27 September 2008 12:06:24 Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:25:55 -0000
>
> Kern Sibbald <email address hidden> wrote:
> > OK, no problem. I didn't take offense, hope you didn't, but just
> > wanted to clarify.
>
> Of course not.
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh! Mea culpa... I didn't know 2.2.8 is still getting patches. I'm
> checking out source as I write this...

OK. Just to be clear, you can get it from the "branches" Branch-2.2

svn checkout https://bacula.svn.sf.net/svnroot/bacula/branches/Branch-2.2 ...

You might want to subscribe to the Source Forge Bacula bacula-patches
notification. That way, you will see when I post any new patch. In general,
once I post a patch, it means it has been reasonably well tested and usually
verified by the bug submittor (or myself if I found the bug).

Occassionally, and very unusual, as was the case in the original strippath bug
report, I cannot reproduce the problem and the reporter does not respond to
requests to confirm the patch, and the patch may not be totally correct,
which is why we had at least two patches for that bug.

In any case, if you get a bug report, it always best to check if any patches
on it have been released ...

>
> > 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 ...
>
> I've seen your comments on bug in bacula buglist, but we really need
> Sergio to confirm this.
>
> Thank you for the info!

Thanks for the description of PPA, pretty cool.