[pkg-bacula-devel] Bug#825064: Bacula director does not start silently due to database mismatch

[Klaus Ethgen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Di den 24. Mai 2016 um 18:02 schrieb Paul Gevers:
> > Klaus is of the opinion that setting it to 'true' will reinstall the
> > database on updates, for that he quotes the question about
> > reinstallation asked when doing "dpkg-reconfigure <packagename>".
> 
> dbconfig-common will not reinstall the database on updates. If it ever
> does that it is a grave bug. Klaus is right however that the database
> can be reinstalled with dpkg-reconfigure, so you can loose the old
> database that way, but that is intended behavior. The text he quotes is
> however not the question that gets asked during upgrades. The text
> during upgrades is given below and says nothing about reinstallation of
> the database.

I didn't get the option at all to upgrade the database. I only always
got the quoted question ever.

> The reason why dbc_install=false drops the full support of
> dbconfig-common is because that is the variable that is set during the
> initial installation (and the only one if one opts-out of support). So
> we need to check this before anything else. If you didn't want install
> support, it doesn't make sense to ask if you want upgrade support.

And that might be the problem. At the initial installation that was
handled via dbconfig, I already had a populated database that I couldn't
risk to lose. For that reason I answered the already quoted question
with "no" in the first place.

There was never a question about update.

And, if I could remember correct, there was database upgrades in the
past that was working. But that might be before dbconfig.

> The config file says this:
> # dbc_install: configure database with dbconfig-common?
> #              set to anything but "true" to opt out of assistance
> dbc_install='$(dbc_sq_escape $dbc_install)'
> 
> It doesn't say anything about installing the database every time, nor
> does the description say that it is valid for install only. I agree
> however that the variable name may be misleading. I am NOT going to
> change that however as that would be too likely to cause other bugs.
> However, the description can be improved if we find the current text not
> good enough. If we go that route, I would like to ask advice from
> debian-l10n-english at l.d.o. On the other hand, typically those values get
> set from the debconf questions, so those questions are more important
> and we reviewed them multiple times.

I never edited that file before. I always used dpkg-reconfigure (or the
debconf question at the begin). And that was when the database already
existed.

However, I don't think that the name should be changed but it should do
what it is named for. If install is false and upgrade is true, that is
exactly what I have here and it should upgrade the database independent
of the install setting.

> Text on upgrade:
> _Description: Perform upgrade on database for ${pkg} with dbconfig-common?
>  According to the maintainer for this package, database upgrade
>  operations need to be performed on ${pkg}. Typically, this is due to
>  changes in how a new upstream version of the package needs to store
>  its data.
>  .
>  If you want to handle this process manually, you should
>  refuse this option. Otherwise, you should choose this option.
>  During the upgrade, a backup of the database will be made in
>  /var/cache/dbconfig-common/backups, from which the database can
>  be restored in the case of problems.

Fine for me; if I ever would have gotten that question.

However, beside that problem of the upgrade itself, I also complained
about that bacula-dir died silently and the only way to find out why is
using the debug switch. More over, the init script told a successful
restart.

Regards
   Klaus
- -- 
Klaus Ethgen                              http://www.ethgen.ch/
pub  4096R/4E20AF1C 2011-05-16   Klaus Ethgen <Klaus at Ethgen.ch>
Fingerprint: 85D4 CA42 952C 949B 1753  62B3 79D0 B06F 4E20 AF1C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Charset: ISO-8859-1
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=KYN0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----