backuppc-devel — BackupPC developer list

[BackupPC-devel] BackupPC 4.1.0 released

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

BackupPC community,

I'm happy to announce that BackupPC 4.1.0 has been released on Github
<https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/releases>.  There are also new
versions of BackupPC::XS
<https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs/releases> (0.53)
and rsync-bpc <https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc/releases> (3.0.9.6).
on Github.

There are a few new features and important bug fixes, including:

   - BackupPC_migrateV3toV4 optionally allows old 3.x backups to be
   migrated to 4.x format, eliminating the hardlinks used by 3.x. (BackupPC
   4.x can view/browse/restore 3.x backups, so it's not necessary to run
   BackupPC_migrateV3toV4)
   - modern CSS (from Ernesto Carrea)
   - fixes to rsync restore (from Stephen Joyce)
   - fixes to exponential backup expiry (from Alexander Moisseev)
   - added template systemd files
   - configure.pl adds a --config-only option for package builders (from
   Alexander Moisseev)

If you are using 4.0.0, upgrading is strongly recommended.

After installing those two packages, BackupPC 4.1.0 can be installed from
the tar ball with:

    tar zxf BackupPC-4.1.0.tar.gz
    cd BackupPC-4.1.0
    perl configure.pl

See the README.md, ChangeLog and doc/BackupPC.html
<http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPC-4.0.0.html> files for more
information.  An overview of the changes is below.

Thanks for to everyone who provided fixes and reported issues.

Enjoy!

Craig

* Merged pull requests: #17, #44, #59, #60, #61, #62,#68, #69, #73, #74

* Fixed certain rsync restores, based on patch from Stephen Joyce.

* Improvements to Gentoo init.d script (#69) from sigmoidal.

* Fixed exponential backup expiry algorithm, submitted by Alexander
  Moisseev (#17).

* Added --config-only option to configure.pl, from Alexander Moisseev (#62).

* Ensure $? is 0 in bin/BackupPC_dump UserCommandRun() if no command is run,
  reported and proposed fix by stirab (issue #67).

* configure.pl replaces SourceForge links in $Conf{CgiNavBarLinks} with
  new Github links.

* Added BackupPC_migrateV3toV4 that migrates old V3 backup storage to
  V4, eliminating hardlinks.  The forward merging of V3 incrementals is
  not changed; just the backup tree is updated to use V4 attrib files, and
  the linked V3 files are removed.  Thanks to Michael Huntley for testing.

* Renamed init.d to systemd, added systemd/src/backuppc.service template

* Replaced CSS file with new BackupPC_stnd.css from Ernesto Carrea
(#59,#73).
  Renamed old ones to conf/BackupPC_retro_v2.css and
conf/BackupPC_retro_v3.css.

* Updated lib/BackupPC/DirOps.pm with more robust checking that IO::Dirent
  works.  Matches similar changes to 3.x that didn't make it into 4.x.
  Fixes issue #56.

* BackupPC_refCountUpdate handles case of empty backups better.  It creates
  a noPoolCntOk file if there are legitimately no poolCnt files after
  running.  Reported by Alexander Kobel.

* Fixed umask() in child processes (issue #58) reported by Alexander
  Moisseev.

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...>
wrote:

> On 3/22/2017 5:37 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > No, pretty sure that's not the case. There is a straightforward error
> > in apache's error_log saying it's not allowing access due to the
> > configuration and when I use a Directory directive to allow access to
> > /usr/sbin it works, but I don't want to allow apache access to
> > everything in /usr/sbin (or /usr/libexec)
>
> I thought you could put the binary in /usr/libexec/BackupPC and then use
> a Directory directive on that.


Hadn't thought of that... Thanks!

Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Kenneth P. <sh...@se...>]

On 3/22/2017 5:37 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> No, pretty sure that's not the case. There is a straightforward error 
> in apache's error_log saying it's not allowing access due to the 
> configuration and when I use a Directory directive to allow access to 
> /usr/sbin it works, but I don't want to allow apache access to 
> everything in /usr/sbin (or /usr/libexec)

I thought you could put the binary in /usr/libexec/BackupPC and then use 
a Directory directive on that.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC 4.0.0 released

[Steve P. <n9...@n9...>]

Sorry, I re-posed this to the users list, it probably does not belong here. My apologies to all!  :(

Steve

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Steve Palm <n9...@n9...> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Craig Barratt <cba...@us... <mailto:cba...@us...>> wrote:
>> I'm happy to announce that BackupPC 4.0.0 has been released on Github <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/releases> and SourceForge <https://sourceforge.net/projects/backuppc/files/backuppc/4.0.0/>.  
> 
>  I was excited to read this, congratulations on a huge milestone!
> 
>> BackupPC 4.0.0 requires the perl module BackupPC::XS <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs/releases> (>= 0.50) and rsync-bpc <https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc/releases> (>= 3.0.9.5). 
> 
>  I installed these.
> 
>> After installing those two packages, BackupPC 4.0.0 can be installed from the tar ball with:
>> 
>>     tar zxf BackupPC-4.0.0.tar.gz
>>     cd BackupPC-4.0.0
>>     perl configure.pl <http://configure.pl/>
>  And I was greeted with a very unhelpful....
> 
> BackupPC needs the package version.  Please install version
> before installing BackupPC.
> 
> Even running with a trace is not helping me much, not sure what I'm looking at here:
> 
> perl -d:Trace configure.pl
> >> configure.pl:54: my @ConfigureBinList = qw(
> >> configure.pl:79: my @ConfigureLibList = qw(
> >> configure.pl:137: if ( $ConfigureBinList[0] eq "__" . "CONFIGURE_BIN_LIST__" ) {
> >> configure.pl:145: my @Packages = qw(version Encode File::Path File::Spec File::Copy DirHandle
> >> configure.pl:149: my $PackageVersion = {
> >> configure.pl:154: foreach my $pkg ( @Packages ) {
> >> configure.pl:155:     eval "use $pkg";
> >> (eval 1)[configure.pl:155]:2: ;>> configure.pl:156:     if ( !$@ ) {
> >> configure.pl:169:     if ( $pkg =~ /BackupPC::Lib/ ) {
> >> configure.pl:184:     die <<EOF;
> 
> BackupPC needs the package version.  Please install version
> before installing BackupPC.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
>  Steve
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC 4.0.0 released

[Steve P. <n9...@n9...>]

On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Craig Barratt <cba...@us... <mailto:cba...@us...>> wrote:
> I'm happy to announce that BackupPC 4.0.0 has been released on Github <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/releases> and SourceForge <https://sourceforge.net/projects/backuppc/files/backuppc/4.0.0/>.  

 I was excited to read this, congratulations on a huge milestone!

> BackupPC 4.0.0 requires the perl module BackupPC::XS <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc-xs/releases> (>= 0.50) and rsync-bpc <https://github.com/backuppc/rsync-bpc/releases> (>= 3.0.9.5). 

 I installed these.

> After installing those two packages, BackupPC 4.0.0 can be installed from the tar ball with:
> 
>     tar zxf BackupPC-4.0.0.tar.gz
>     cd BackupPC-4.0.0
>     perl configure.pl <http://configure.pl/>
 And I was greeted with a very unhelpful....

BackupPC needs the package version.  Please install version
before installing BackupPC.

Even running with a trace is not helping me much, not sure what I'm looking at here:

perl -d:Trace configure.pl
>> configure.pl:54: my @ConfigureBinList = qw(
>> configure.pl:79: my @ConfigureLibList = qw(
>> configure.pl:137: if ( $ConfigureBinList[0] eq "__" . "CONFIGURE_BIN_LIST__" ) {
>> configure.pl:145: my @Packages = qw(version Encode File::Path File::Spec File::Copy DirHandle
>> configure.pl:149: my $PackageVersion = {
>> configure.pl:154: foreach my $pkg ( @Packages ) {
>> configure.pl:155:     eval "use $pkg";
>> (eval 1)[configure.pl:155]:2: ;>> configure.pl:156:     if ( !$@ ) {
>> configure.pl:169:     if ( $pkg =~ /BackupPC::Lib/ ) {
>> configure.pl:184:     die <<EOF;

BackupPC needs the package version.  Please install version
before installing BackupPC.

Any ideas?

 Steve

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Fritz Elfert <fr...@fr...>
wrote:

> Is your selinux by any chance enabled? Try setenforce=0 temporarily. If
> it works after that, enable it again and after it fails, use audit2allow
> to figure out the necessary rulesets.


No, pretty sure that's not the case. There is a straightforward error in
apache's error_log saying it's not allowing access due to the configuration
and when I use a Directory directive to allow access to /usr/sbin it works,
but I don't want to allow apache access to everything in /usr/sbin (or
/usr/libexec)

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Fritz E. <fr...@fr...>]

Is your selinux by any chance enabled? Try setenforce=0 temporarily. If
it works after that, enable it again and after it fails, use audit2allow
to figure out the necessary rulesets.

CU
 -Fritz

On 21.03.2017 13:50, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...
> <mailto:sh...@se...>> wrote:
> 
>     --On Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:41 PM -0500 Richard Shaw
>     <hob...@gm... <mailto:hob...@gm...>> wrote:
> 
>     > The problem is that a compiled binary doesn't belong in /usr/share/...
>     > (although that's where the current package put it) so I have migrated it
>     > to /usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin.
> 
>     Would it make more sense to put it in /usr/libexec?
> 
> 
> I thought about that as well but in either case it doesn't solve the
> apache directive issue...
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
> 

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Les M. <les...@gm...>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Richard Shaw <hob...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> > The problem is that a compiled binary doesn't belong in /usr/share/...
>> > (although that's where the current package put it) so I have migrated it
>> > to /usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin.
>>
>> Would it make more sense to put it in /usr/libexec?
>
>
> I thought about that as well but in either case it doesn't solve the apache
> directive issue...
>

Is it possible to use Apache's own suEXEC mechanism?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     les...@gm...

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Juergen H. <jue...@un...>]

The Mageia BackupPC 3 package puts BackupPC_Admin (the suid executable) 
into /var/wwww/backuppc/, next to BackupPC_Admin.cgi - and Apache does 
not complain. Normally Mageia is configured along the same lines as 
Fedora. Could this be a viable alternative for BackupPC 4?

Juergen

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...>
wrote:

> --On Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:41 PM -0500 Richard Shaw
> <hob...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that a compiled binary doesn't belong in /usr/share/...
> > (although that's where the current package put it) so I have migrated it
> > to /usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin.
>
> Would it make more sense to put it in /usr/libexec?


I thought about that as well but in either case it doesn't solve the apache
directive issue...

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Kenneth P. <sh...@se...>]

--On Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:41 PM -0500 Richard Shaw 
<hob...@gm...> wrote:

> The problem is that a compiled binary doesn't belong in /usr/share/...
> (although that's where the current package put it) so I have migrated it
> to /usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin.

Would it make more sense to put it in /usr/libexec?

<https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/s1-filesystem-fhs.html>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[BackupPC-devel] Scaling out and extending the uses for BackupPC

[Johan E. <jo...@mo...>]

Hi all,

For the last two years I have been looking at scaling out the backup 
server end and making backup connections. And since over a decade, I've 
created solutions for improving backup from behind firewalls and from 
difficult client machines, while still keeping things mostly automated. 
At my business, we are currently using BackupPC and UrBackup for 
different use cases. However, one tool alone could fit the bill with 
some improvements.

Inspired to a large extent by the changes brought by BackupPC version 4, 
I baked the development ideas and observations from my work into an 
article. In other words, a big thanks and congratulations goes to Craig 
and all fellow contributors for reaching version 4!

The article can be found here:
https://molnix.com/proposal-new-open-source-backup-solution/

I am eager to continue discussions on this topic here! I am also on the 
UrBackup formus. Maybe some pieces of the proposal end up on a 
development roadmap somewhere, in some form.

Best regards,
Johan Ehnberg

-- 
Johan Ehnberg
jo...@mo...
+358503209688

Molnix Oy
molnix.com

[BackupPC-devel] BackupPC_Admin C wrapper and apache hell

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

>From a Fedora packaging perspective we can't do the standard setup because
we don't allow perl scripts to run as suid and can't use mod_perl because
it requires a separate apache instance so instead we use a simple C wrapper
that can run suid.

The problem is that a compiled binary doesn't belong in /usr/share/...
(although that's where the current package put it) so I have migrated it to
/usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin.

The problem is that I can't seem to find the magic incantation to make
apache happy with it. I can duplicate the contents of the Directory
directive for /usr/sbin but I don't want to expose that access to
everything in /usr/sbin, just BackupPC_Admin, but when I try any version of
the Files directive it refuses to work saying something to the effect of:

authz_core:error] [pid 32390] [client ::1:37302] AH01630: client denied by
server configuration: /usr/sbin/BackupPC_Admin

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] SystemD service type?

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

Copying reply to users list:

I just pushed to git (https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/commit/
51e579bae854ec78573cff9c3ff36ee589286502) these changes:

   - BackupPC exits with status 0 on TERM signal
   - systemd file now uses Type=simple, dropped the -d, and TERM signal to
   terminate

Craig

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Richard Shaw <hob...@gm...> wrote:

> Since Systemd does not require a service to fork, would it be cleaner to
> just call BackupPC without the "-d" option and use "Type=simple"?
>
> Then we wouldn't even need a pid file...
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>

[BackupPC-devel] SystemD service type?

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

Since Systemd does not require a service to fork, would it be cleaner to
just call BackupPC without the "-d" option and use "Type=simple"?

Then we wouldn't even need a pid file...

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] rsync-bpc breaks tests?

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

Richard,

Unfortunately it would be very difficult for rsync_bpc to support the rsync
tests, and there's no plan to do so.

Craig


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Richard Shaw <hob...@gm...> wrote:

> While working on submitting rsync-bpc for Fedora I noticed that "make
> check" doesn't appear to work due to lots of undefined references. I assume
> this has to do with the "bpc_" prefix to a lot of the functions...
>
> Can this be fixed? It would be nice to know if all tests pass...
>
> $ make check
> gcc -I. -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
> -m64 -mtune=generic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wall -W  -c tls.c -o tls.o
> gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
> -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64
> -mtune=generic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wall -W -Wl,-z,relro
> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -o tls tls.o syscall.o
> lib/compat.o lib/snprintf.o lib/permstring.o lib/sysxattrs.o  -lacl -lpopt
> syscall.o: In function `do_chmod':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:114:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lchmod'
> syscall.o: In function `do_ftruncate':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:153:
> undefined reference to `bpc_ftruncate'
> syscall.o: In function `do_lutimes':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:242:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lutimes'
> syscall.o: In function `do_unlink':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:53:
> undefined reference to `bpc_unlink'
> syscall.o: In function `do_symlink':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:60:
> undefined reference to `bpc_symlink'
> syscall.o: In function `do_link':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:68:
> undefined reference to `bpc_link'
> syscall.o: In function `do_lchown':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:79:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lchown'
> syscall.o: In function `do_mknod':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:87:
> undefined reference to `bpc_mknod'
> syscall.o: In function `do_rmdir':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:94:
> undefined reference to `bpc_rmdir'
> syscall.o: In function `do_open':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:104:
> undefined reference to `bpc_open'
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:104:
> undefined reference to `bpc_open'
> syscall.o: In function `do_rename':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:141:
> undefined reference to `bpc_rename'
> syscall.o: In function `do_mkdir':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:183:
> undefined reference to `bpc_mkdir'
> syscall.o: In function `do_mkstemp':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:195:
> undefined reference to `bpc_mkstemp'
> syscall.o: In function `do_stat':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:212:
> undefined reference to `bpc_stat'
> syscall.o: In function `do_lstat':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:217:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lstat'
> syscall.o: In function `do_fstat':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:222:
> undefined reference to `bpc_fstat'
> syscall.o: In function `do_lseek':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:227:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lseek'
> syscall.o: In function `do_utime':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:264:
> undefined reference to `bpc_utime'
> lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lgetxattr':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:31:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lgetxattr'
> lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_fgetxattr':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:36:
> undefined reference to `bpc_fgetxattr'
> lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lsetxattr':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:41:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lsetxattr'
> lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lremovexattr':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:46:
> undefined reference to `bpc_lremovexattr'
> lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_llistxattr':
> /home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:51:
> undefined reference to `bpc_llistxattr'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> Makefile:101: recipe for target 'tls' failed
> make: *** [tls] Error 1
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>

[BackupPC-devel] rsync-bpc breaks tests?

[Richard S. <hob...@gm...>]

While working on submitting rsync-bpc for Fedora I noticed that "make
check" doesn't appear to work due to lots of undefined references. I assume
this has to do with the "bpc_" prefix to a lot of the functions...

Can this be fixed? It would be nice to know if all tests pass...

$ make check
gcc -I. -I. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wall -W  -c tls.c -o tls.o
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64
-mtune=generic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wall -W -Wl,-z,relro
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -o tls tls.o syscall.o
lib/compat.o lib/snprintf.o lib/permstring.o lib/sysxattrs.o  -lacl -lpopt
syscall.o: In function `do_chmod':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:114:
undefined reference to `bpc_lchmod'
syscall.o: In function `do_ftruncate':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:153:
undefined reference to `bpc_ftruncate'
syscall.o: In function `do_lutimes':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:242:
undefined reference to `bpc_lutimes'
syscall.o: In function `do_unlink':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:53:
undefined reference to `bpc_unlink'
syscall.o: In function `do_symlink':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:60:
undefined reference to `bpc_symlink'
syscall.o: In function `do_link':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:68:
undefined reference to `bpc_link'
syscall.o: In function `do_lchown':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:79:
undefined reference to `bpc_lchown'
syscall.o: In function `do_mknod':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:87:
undefined reference to `bpc_mknod'
syscall.o: In function `do_rmdir':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:94:
undefined reference to `bpc_rmdir'
syscall.o: In function `do_open':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:104:
undefined reference to `bpc_open'
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:104:
undefined reference to `bpc_open'
syscall.o: In function `do_rename':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:141:
undefined reference to `bpc_rename'
syscall.o: In function `do_mkdir':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:183:
undefined reference to `bpc_mkdir'
syscall.o: In function `do_mkstemp':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:195:
undefined reference to `bpc_mkstemp'
syscall.o: In function `do_stat':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:212:
undefined reference to `bpc_stat'
syscall.o: In function `do_lstat':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:217:
undefined reference to `bpc_lstat'
syscall.o: In function `do_fstat':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:222:
undefined reference to `bpc_fstat'
syscall.o: In function `do_lseek':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:227:
undefined reference to `bpc_lseek'
syscall.o: In function `do_utime':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/syscall.c:264:
undefined reference to `bpc_utime'
lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lgetxattr':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:31:
undefined reference to `bpc_lgetxattr'
lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_fgetxattr':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:36:
undefined reference to `bpc_fgetxattr'
lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lsetxattr':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:41:
undefined reference to `bpc_lsetxattr'
lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_lremovexattr':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:46:
undefined reference to `bpc_lremovexattr'
lib/sysxattrs.o: In function `sys_llistxattr':
/home/build/rpmbuild/rsync-bpc/BUILD/rsync-bpc-3_0_9_5/lib/sysxattrs.c:51:
undefined reference to `bpc_llistxattr'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Makefile:101: recipe for target 'tls' failed
make: *** [tls] Error 1

Thanks,
Richard

Re: [BackupPC-devel] RFE: Combining include and exclude in rsyncd backups

[Kenneth P. <sh...@se...>]

--On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:43 PM +0100 Holger Parplies 
<wb...@pa...> wrote:

> I never seem to be able to remember how many levels of quoting you need,
> because I don't use Windoze, but I'm guessing your problem lies there.
> What exact settings are you using?

I used the web config and trusted that it would quote properly. So my 
BackupFilesOnly has key "C" and value "/devel" (without quotes). That seems 
to work fine. 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [BackupPC-devel] RFE: Combing include and exclude in rsyncd backups

[Kenneth P. <sh...@se...>]

--On Monday, March 13, 2017 5:38 PM -0700 Craig Barratt 
<cba...@us...> wrote:

> In 4.x you can specify both includes and excludes with rsync and rsyncd.

It turns out I misread the v3 documentation. The two are only mutually 
exclusive with smb backups. So I should be able to tweak some of my 
configs. 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [BackupPC-devel] RFE: Combining include and exclude in rsyncd backups

[Holger P. <wb...@pa...>]

Hi,

Craig Barratt wrote on 2017-03-13 16:38:18 -0700 [Re: [BackupPC-devel] RFE: Combing include and exclude in rsyncd backups]:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...>
> wrote:
> > It would be nice if I could combine exclude and include in an rsyncd
> > backup. That way I could back up a subdirectory within a module but still
> > exclude directories within that directory. Ie. apply the exclude list after
> > the include list. Is this a protocol limitation or a BackupPC limitation?
>
> In 4.x you can specify both includes and excludes with rsync and rsyncd.

you can also do that in 3.x. It's actually not really "includes" -
BackupFilesOnly is emulated by creating includes and excludes that lead to
the desired behaviour. After that, BackupFilesExclude is appended to the
list, so you should be able to achieve exactly what you want. For Windoze,
I believe the syntax is confusing, because you can sometimes specify / as
path separator, sometimes \ and sometimes \\ (quoted backslash). Windoze
should accept both slash and backslash for file names, but in-/exclude
matching may be just string based on either client or server. I never seem
to be able to remember how many levels of quoting you need, because I don't
use Windoze, but I'm guessing your problem lies there. What exact settings
are you using?

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Holger

Re: [BackupPC-devel] IPv6 support?

[Holger P. <wb...@pa...>]

Hi,

Alexander Moisseev wrote on 2017-03-13 20:45:49 +0300 [Re: [BackupPC-devel] IPv6 support?]:
> On 3/13/17 7:23 PM, Fritz Elfert wrote:
> > [...]
> > Instead, make a second package "backuppc4".  This way, user can have
> > both versions installed and then gracefully migrate.
> 
> You can't use both v3 and v4 on the same host as they install files in the
> same place.

that wouldn't need to be true, since distribution packages can choose where to
install which file (and which files possibly to share). However, I can't really
see much point in running both versions on one host aside from brief testing
for migration, and distinct paths for both versions would considerably
complicate migration, somewhat negating the whole point. The distribution would
be left "forever" with somewhat unnatural paths (e.g. /etc/backuppc4,
/var/lib/backuppc4, /usr/share/backuppc4 ...).

I would rephrase your comment as "it shouldn't be possible to install
distribution packages for both v3 and v4 on the same host" ;-).

> However, keeping v3 package "backuppc" and making "backuppc4" package for v4
> is a quite good point as a lot of people use v3 in production and changes
> between v3 and v4 are substantial.

I fully agree with that. Version 4 is a whole new philosophy, with which you
may or may not agree. It's a bit like "upgrading" from init to systemd. No
offence intended ;-).

> BTW v3 support is not dropped by upstream yet.

Another good point. It's a bit awkward to release packages for new v3 releases
that supercede older v3 packages but not older v4 packages if the package name
is identical :-).

Les Mikesell wrote on 2017-03-13 13:14:21 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-devel] IPv6 support?]:
> My opinion is that nothing should ever break in a 'yum update' from
> CentOS/EPEL repositories if it can possibly be avoided.   And even
> with v4 in release status there may be reasons to install v3 or
> rebuild a machine without changing anything.

I also agree with that (and would extend it to other distros).

> Using different package names will let them co-exist for at least as long
> as v3 will be maintained and let the sysadmin decide when to switch.
> I might think differently if the upgrade could be completely transparent,
> though.

I don't see how a transparent upgrade would make the reasons go away, for
which you might want to install v3 or decide when to switch. (*)

While running v3 and v4 on the same host does not sound like a good idea,
running them on *different* hosts definitely does!

Regards,
Holger

(*) Aside from that, it is not *possible* to guarantee a transparent upgrade.
    My RsyncClientCmd might invoke a remote end that is dependent on the exact
    sequence of arguments passed by File::RsyncP, so upgrading might even
    involve changing and recompiling code on a remote machine. The normal cases
    (ssh, sudo, ssh + sudo) might work, but the flexibility the configuration
    mechanism gives you comes at the cost of not being able to predict what
    people will actually do.

Re: [BackupPC-devel] 4.0 rsync config changes (was: IPv6 support?)

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

The configure.pl script updates the relevant rsync settings in the main
config.pl file.  In particular, it updates $Conf{RsyncArgs}
and $Conf{RsyncRestoreArgs} with the 4.0 settings.

$Conf{RsyncSshArgs} is a new 4.0 setting, and $Conf{RsyncClientCmd}
and $Conf{RsyncClientRestoreCmd} are no longer used.  configure.pl tries to
extract a sensible default setting for $Conf{RsyncSshArgs} from
$Conf{RsyncClientCmd}.

The potential problems are that there are per-client overrides for these
settings (which is not checked by configure.pl), and the computed value for
$Conf{RsyncSshArgs} isn't correct.

All the major per-client settings (schedule, what to backup etc) are
compatible from 3.x to 4.x.

Craig

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...>
wrote:

> --On Monday, March 13, 2017 11:52 AM -0700 Craig Barratt
> <cba...@us...> wrote:
>
> > That said, the 4.0 client configuration has changed for rsync hosts due
> to
> > the use of rsync_bpc, so a package upgrade from 3.x to 4.x will
> > potentially require some admin effort to update the client configs.  So I
> > agree it won't be a completely seamless upgrade.
>
> Can you say more about what needs to change? I don't think I'm doing
> anything incredibly exotic. Mainly a few hosts use include instead of
> exclude to allow me to split up backups into smaller units without changing
> the rsyncd config on the PC being backed up.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>

Re: [BackupPC-devel] RFE: Combing include and exclude in rsyncd backups

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

In 4.x you can specify both includes and excludes with rsync and rsyncd.

Craig

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kenneth Porter <sh...@se...>
wrote:

> It would be nice if I could combine exclude and include in an rsyncd
> backup. That way I could back up a subdirectory within a module but still
> exclude directories within that directory. Ie. apply the exclude list after
> the include list. Is this a protocol limitation or a BackupPC limitation?
>
> Example:
>
> Host provides "C" module exposing C:\ for backup. I have backups like this:
>
> C\devel\Boost (just the Boost C++ libraries)
> C\devel (all development except Boost)
> C (the rest of the drive)
>
> Currently I have to list all the directories under C\devel for the include
> list. I'd rather have it recognize an exclude list of just C\devel\Boost so
> that when a user adds a new directory under C\devel I don't have to modify
> the backup configuration.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>

Re: [BackupPC-devel] IPv6 support?

[Les M. <les...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Craig Barratt
<cba...@us...> wrote:
> BackupPC 4.0 is backward compatible with 3.x backup storage - they can be
> viewed/restored etc.  I just pushed an optional migration tool,
> BackupPC_migrateV3toV4, that replaces the hardlinked 3.x storage in each
> backup with 4.x-style attrib files and reference counting.  So you can use
> that to get rid of all the 3.x hardlinks if you want, but it's not
> necessary.
>
> That said, the 4.0 client configuration has changed for rsync hosts due to
> the use of rsync_bpc, so a package upgrade from 3.x to 4.x will potentially
> require some admin effort to update the client configs.  So I agree it won't
> be a completely seamless upgrade.
>
> What do other people recommend in terms of having a new package name for
> BackupPC 4.x?
>

My opinion is that nothing should ever break in a 'yum update' from
CentOS/EPEL repositories if it can possibly be avoided.   And even
with v4 in release status there may be reasons to install v3 or
rebuild a machine without changing anything.  Using different package
names will let them co-exist for at least as long as v3 will be
maintained and let the sysadmin decide when to switch.  I might think
differently if the upgrade could be completely transparent, though.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     les...@gm...

[BackupPC-devel] 4.0 rsync config changes (was: IPv6 support?)

[Kenneth P. <sh...@se...>]

--On Monday, March 13, 2017 11:52 AM -0700 Craig Barratt 
<cba...@us...> wrote:

> That said, the 4.0 client configuration has changed for rsync hosts due to
> the use of rsync_bpc, so a package upgrade from 3.x to 4.x will
> potentially require some admin effort to update the client configs.  So I
> agree it won't be a completely seamless upgrade.

Can you say more about what needs to change? I don't think I'm doing 
anything incredibly exotic. Mainly a few hosts use include instead of 
exclude to allow me to split up backups into smaller units without changing 
the rsyncd config on the PC being backed up.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus