I haven't read all the details of this bug report, but it seems to me that the
basic problem is that normally in major Bacula upgrade, e.g. 1.36.x -> 1.38,
Bacula has new table formats. This has nothing to do with upgrading the SQL
engine, but is due to the fact that the Bacula SQL table format
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:50:15PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I'm not sure all the issues below are related to the work-around, but
> it seems likely that some are. So I'll report them under this bug.
>
> After the steps described in earlier mails, I did an upgrade. Here's
> the log:
>
I'm not sure all the issues below are related to the work-around, but
it seems likely that some are. So I'll report them under this bug.
After the steps described in earlier mails, I did an upgrade. Here's
the log:
--
Setting up bac
I've been able to work around this, and have some news based on
exchanges with the dbconfig people. You can see the thread at
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dbconfig-common-devel/2006-July/000547.html
for more details.
First, it is possible that if I had answered yes to the initial
ques
Any news on this? bacula has been non-functional for me since the
upgrade.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: bacula-director-pgsql
Version: 1.38.9-10
Severity: normal
The failure may arise from my having responded improperly to the
installation questions. If so, this may be a documentation issue more
than anything. Even after the install I don't see much about how to
go from 1.36->1.38.
>From
6 matches
Mail list logo
