Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Debian package faults 2.6.0-1

  1. #1

    Default Debian package faults 2.6.0-1

    These faults were discovered in the amd64 package of 2.6.0-1

    During preinst:

    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: Verifying amandabackup user parameters :
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: !!! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! !!!
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: !!! user 'amandabackup' is not part of the disk group,Pl !!!
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: !!! make sure it is corrected before start using amanda !!!
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: !!! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! !!!
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30:
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: Checking ownership of '/var/lib/amanda'... incorrect!
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: Please ensure that the directory '/var/lib/amanda' is owned by
    Apr 12 2008 08:55:30: the user 'amandabackup' and group 'disk '.

    workaround:

    dpkg -x amanda-backup-server-2.6.0-1-amd64.deb /tmp/amanda-pkg
    dpkg -e amanda-backup-server-2.6.0-1-amd64.deb /tmp/amanda-pkg
    # Remove the spaces after ${amanda_group} in the preinst file
    dpkg -b /tmp/amanda-pkg


    During postinst:


    Apr 12 2008 09:06:23: Installing '/var/amanda/amandates'.
    touch: cannot touch `/var/amanda/amandates': No such file or directory

    workaround:
    - ln -s /var/lib/amanda /var/amanda


    Also:

    I notice that this package is not quite the same as the package bundled with Debian. For example:
    - if /etc/amanda was already created by the official Debian package, it is owned by user backup and is not writeable by amandabackup
    - same for /var/log/amanda, /dumps/amanda and /tmp/amanda - if they already exist, the ownership has to be updated
    - the user amandabackup is not automatically added to the group `tape' and therefore can't access the tape drive or changer
    - different directory locations
    - different user (amandabackup instead of just amanda)
    Last edited by daniel_p; April 12th, 2008 at 12:28 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    amdevcheck fails to run

    I can't find Device.pm anywhere on my system, maybe it has been left out of the package?

    BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/sbin/amdevcheck line 4.
    Can't locate Amanda/Device.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.8 /usr/share/perl/5.8 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/sbin/amdevcheck line 4.


    Manual workaround:

    # download and unpack the Amanda 2.6 source
    cd amanda-2.6.0/perl
    mkdir -p /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8
    cp -R Amanda /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8


    Now it fails like this:

    Can't locate loadable object for module Amanda::Types in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.8 /usr/share/perl/5.8 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Amanda/Types.pm line 11
    Compilation failed in require at /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Amanda/Device.pm line 10.
    Compilation failed in require at /usr/sbin/amdevcheck line 4.
    BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/sbin/amdevcheck line 4.


    Another workaround:
    Compile the shared libraries and put them in the place where they are expected to be:

    # in the Amanda 2.6 source tree
    ./configure --sysconfdir=/etc --with-user=amandabackup --with-group=disk
    make
    cp perl/.libs/*.so /usr/local/lib
    Last edited by daniel_p; April 12th, 2008 at 02:38 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    From all these errors I get the impression that there has either been a serious packaging mistake (perhaps using an old build script) and that there has been no real testing of this package prior to public release.

    Has there been extensive testing on any other architecture?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default debian faults: oops.

    I wish we'd had more community help in testing the debian package before release, but we didn't. Mostly because the package wasn't ready. I only finished it up about a week before release, which was after our last beta.

    This is the first time we've tried to distribute a debian package so there are bound to be some problems. Fortunately, the everything you've tripped over is relatively simple to fix (I think).

    I'll file bugs for the two typos you found in the pre/post scripts.

    I'm not quite sure why the perl libs are not getting installed. If you're familiar with debian packaging, which it seems you are, you can take a look at the rules file which is in the source tree at packaging/deb/rules. I also include a script which builds deb packages exactly like we do in house (packaging/deb/buildpkg).

    The perl libraries move around quite a bit right before release (don't ask.), so I'll bet it's just a matter of adjusting the right path somewhere.

    And to answer some of your questions from the very first post: We know that this package is different from the official debian package. We're not trying to emulate that package. Our package has the options we use on other platforms mostly to make support easier. We haven't tested upgrades from official packages to our packages. Clearly it doesn't work now, but if you're willing to work with me, it will.

    I've also been in touch with the official debian packager for amanda. He's been pretty receptive, so new debian official packages will probably have some of our options included, and our packages will have some of his recommendations as well.

    Dan
    Zmanda Software Engineer and Packaging Goon.

  5. #5

    Default

    Ok, thanks for the response. I think AMANDA is very close to meeting our needs, and the results for small backups were quite satisfactory. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent so much time getting the broken packages to work and documenting my discoveries.

    On the issue of Debian packaging:

    - I think it is important to adhere to the mandatory elements of Debian packaging policies, even if your package is distributed from your own repository

    - However, consistency with the existing package (e.g. choice of username) is not essential - provided that there is an upgrade mechanism in place and some warnings to users who have the old package installed

    - Also, AMANDA's errors are not always helpful - I was able to find all the directories needing a change of ownership, but other users will need more verbose errors to help them in this situation.

    - Re-inventing the wheel is not always productive - having two variations of the Debian package (one in Debian's archive and one on your site) may actually complicate your support programs even more. Many Debian users won't know about yours because they just use apt-get to install stuff. I'd be quite happy to see a package that merges your ideas and the original package to give a single, supported and high quality solution.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel_p View Post
    Ok, thanks for the response. I think AMANDA is very close to meeting our needs, and the results for small backups were quite satisfactory. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent so much time getting the broken packages to work and documenting my discoveries.

    On the issue of Debian packaging:

    - I think it is important to adhere to the mandatory elements of Debian packaging policies, even if your package is distributed from your own repository

    - However, consistency with the existing package (e.g. choice of username) is not essential - provided that there is an upgrade mechanism in place and some warnings to users who have the old package installed

    - Also, AMANDA's errors are not always helpful - I was able to find all the directories needing a change of ownership, but other users will need more verbose errors to help them in this situation.

    - Re-inventing the wheel is not always productive - having two variations of the Debian package (one in Debian's archive and one on your site) may actually complicate your support programs even more. Many Debian users won't know about yours because they just use apt-get to install stuff. I'd be quite happy to see a package that merges your ideas and the original package to give a single, supported and high quality solution.

    On the whole you're right. Debian's mandatory elements are pretty reasonable, and I've tried to follow what I know of them. The amanda community could always use help, and specific suggestions to make things better. Debian policies I've inadvertantly broken are one place. Suggestions for more informative errors are another.

    I love wheels. Most importantly I love to use other people's wheels, as they are a lot of work to invent. The package you used (which I broke) is based on debian's official package. The deb maintainer and I are in communication but, I don't think either of us expect that our package will be 100% debian compliant. I hope that the changes are minor, though.

    Anyway, how do you want to be credited in the changelog? ([email protected] if you don't want it published on our forum) I have a patched package which I'll send over to QA, but I can make it available to you for testing as well, if you like.

    Dan

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default 2.6.0-2

    I have a 2nd revision of the debian package ready. I'd definitely appreciate your feedback before we release.

    Thanks,
    Dan

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,559

    Default

    New debian packages with the fixes are available at [URL=http://www.zmanda.com/download-amanda.php]Zmanda downloads[/URL] page.

    Paddy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •