Re: [Bacula-users] SD craches during backup with "Network send error to SD"

[Christoph H. <em...@ch...>]

On Saturday 15 October 2005 23:13, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2005 at 23:07, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > On Saturday 15 October 2005 22:56, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > On 15 Oct 2005 at 21:04, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 15 October 2005 20:51, Fran=E7ois Roels wrote:
> > > > > I'm not able to backup my server any longer. Le backup processes
> > > > > crach after any attempt without usefull (for me) message.
> > > >
> > > > I have filed a bug report against the package a week ago on the
> > > > BTS (Debian's
> > > > bug tracking system). See: http://bugs.debian.org/332743
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps these two cases are related? (Question asked in direction
> > > > of the honored Bacula development crew.)
> > >
> > > Why did you log a Bacula bug in the Debian system?
> >
> > Because there could be a bug in a Debian package.
>
> Yes, there could be. I would expect you to establish that there was a
> bug before logging a bug report.

If a process suddenly dies without something useful in the logs then it
smells suspiciously like a bug. There are lesser reasons to file a bug
report.

> > You probably rather wanted to ask: "Why did you not log a Bacula bug
> > in the Bacula bug tracking system instead?"
>
> No, I didn't want to ask that.  I was quite precise with my choice of
> words.

If you were familiar with Debian then you would know the answer already.
Otherwise your original question makes no sense to me.

> > Because that's the default way to report problem with a binary Debian
> > package. It's the lazy end-user's way to tell the package maintainer
> > that there is a problem. In case the package being shipped with Debian
> > Sarge has a serious bug - perhaps even a security-relevant one - then
> > Debian needs to take action quickly. That could mean packaging a
> > slightly newer version or adding upstream patches to the "old" version
> > by the package maintainer.
> >
> > Usually asking the (upstream) software developers means getting the
> > reply "ah, that has been fixed in a later version - please upgrade".
> > But Debian doesn't work that way. The package maintainer's duty is to
> > look into the bug report, hopefully verify the bug and decide whether
> > to forward that report upstream.
>
> That process sounds inefficient and places too much work upon the
> packager.

Question it all you want. That's the way it works.

Now if we can please get on-topic again. No need to raise the
temperature with off-topic discussions.

 Christoph
=2D-=20
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%--                1,48         All