minorest revision number change breaks network protocol

[Nick Moffitt]

Binary package hint: rdiff-backup

Ubuntu does not seem to provide the current stable version of rdiff-backup, and the gutsy version of rdiff-backup (1.1.12) is incompatible with the version in all currently supported releases of Ubuntu (1.1.5). This means that when any machine upgrades to gutsy, it is impossible to rdiff-backup to a system that has not gone to gutsy. This is especially important when backing up (say) gutsy desktops to Dapper LTS servers.

Either rdiff-backup should not break compatibility with subrevisions, or Ubuntu should provide a version of rdiff-backup that will communicate with all other currently-supported releases of Ubuntu.

[William Grant (wgrant)]

I got hit by this when I upgraded this morning. I might try to backport 1.1.12 to Dapper for now, but that's not an ideal fix.

[Andrew Ferguson (adferguson)]

Unfortunately, this protocol change was necessary to fix a long-standing and troublesome bug. These are the kind of changes that can happen in a development branch, and that is why it is highly recommended that you run the same version on all machines (rdiff-backup checks for this and prints a warning otherwise).

The silver lining is that a new stable release is in the near future, probably within the next two months and certainly by the end of 2007.

Andrew

[William Grant (wgrant)]

We can't directly backport 1.1.12 to Dapper due to Python policy changes, but it should be OK for Edgy and Feisty. Alternatively, we could do something like what unison does and have an rdiff-backup-1.1.5 in Gutsy.

[Nick Moffitt (nick-moffitt)]

owsla, I appreciate the need for protocol changes, and appreciate that the unstable version is meant to be a moving target. The problem as I see it is that Ubuntu does not package the stable version of rdiff-backup, and that the unstable versions are not explicitly packaged with protocol versions in the package names. I probably should have chosen a more Ubuntu-specific subject for this bug, but space is short.

William, I think that it is a good idea to have an rdiff-backup-1.1.5 in gutsy, and that would give me a chance to start adjusting dependencies in my internal systems to prefer that package in advance of release. It would be best if we had rdiff-backup-1.1.12 and rdiff-backup-1.0.5 (or just '1.0' if that's where protocol compatability lives in the stable version number scheme) as well, and pointed to the appropriate ones with "rdiff-backup-stable" and a transitional "rdiff-backup" package.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

I (think) I encountered this (from gusty to hardy), and I did not get a tidy message, just a traceback.

[Tommy Williams (talen-quickblade)]

Besides upgrading my production server, or using a earlier version of rdiff-backup on other machines, are there any other work arounds for getting rdiff-backup 1.1.12 or better onto dapper server.

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

I use duplicity as a workaround.

On 1/20/09, Tommy Williams <email address hidden> wrote:
> Besides upgrading my production server, or using a earlier version of
> rdiff-backup on other machines, are there any other work arounds for
> getting rdiff-backup 1.1.12 or better onto dapper server.
>
> --
> minorest revision number change breaks network protocol
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/128242
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
>

--
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

I have just encountered this problem after upgrading a desktop machine to Jaunty yesterday. My server (which manages the backups and is running Intrepid 8.10) now fails because the versions are too far out I assume.

Here's the error log when running from the CLI:

backups@vimes:~$ rdiff-backup -v9 --include-filelist rdiff-lobsang-list lobsang-backup::/home/alord alord/lobsang
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Using rdiff-backup version 1.1.16
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Executing ssh -C lobsang-backup rdiff-backup --server
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): ConnectionRequest: Globals.get with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): 'version'
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client received (0): '1.2.7'
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Warning: Local version 1.1.16 does not match remote version 1.2.7.
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Registering connection 1
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): ConnectionRequest: SetConnections.init_connection_remote with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): 1
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client received (0): None
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): ConnectionRequest: log.Log.setverbosity with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): 9
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client received (0): None
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): ConnectionRequest: log.Log.setterm_verbosity with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): 9
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Server sending (0): None
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client received (0): None
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): ConnectionRequest: C.make_file_dict with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client sending (0): '/home/alord'
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Server received (0): ConnectionRequest: log.Log.setterm_verbosity with 1 arguments
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Server received (0): 9
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Server sending (0): None
Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Client received (0):
Warning Security Violation!
Bad request for function: C.make_file_dict
with arguments: ['/home/alord']

Sat Apr 11 16:16:59 2009 Exception '
Warning Security Violation!
Bad request for function: C.make_file_dict
with arguments: ['/home/alord']
' raised of class '<class 'rdiff_backup.Security.Violation'>':
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/Main.py", line 302, in error_check_Main
    try: Main(arglist)
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/Main.py", line 319, in Main
    rps = map(SetConnections.cmdpair2rp, cmdpairs)
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/SetConnections.py", line 78, in cmdpair2rp
    return rpath.RPath(conn, filename).normalize()
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/rpath.py", line 767, in __init__
    else: self.setdata()
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/rpath.py", line 791, in setdata
    self.data = self.conn.C.make_file_dict(self.path)
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/connection.py", line 447, in __call__
    return apply(self.connection.reval, (self.name,) + args)
  File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/rdiff_backup/connection.py", line 369, in reval
    if isinstance(result, ...

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

Would using an APT-Pinning scheme be a good way to work around this?

[Andreas Olsson (andol)]

Well, not sure what the proper solution is for current/old version of Ubuntu

But since Jaunty includes a rdiff-backup version from its stable branch (now 1.2.x) I'd say the strategy for the near future should be to make sure we don't yet again take in versions from the development branch (now 1.3.x). Actually, I think I'll send an e-mail to the Debain maintainer regarding his view on the matter.

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

I tried - albeit quite briefly - installing the Intrepid version of rdiff-backup using APT-Pinning onto Jaunty but due to it depending on < Python2.6 it failed.

This is a real headache. It means effectively that you can't use rdiff-backup between releases of Ubuntu from now on. I guess the minor version steps between Gutsy and Intrepid 1.1.15 to 1.1.16 have been OK. But what happens now we have a 1.2.X in the mix?

Could we backport a 1.2 release perhaps?

[Andreas Olsson (andol)]

@Alan: Well, perhaps this PPA (which I maintain) can be of some use, as a workaround?

https://launchpad.net/~rdiff-backup-pkgs/+archive/ppa

[Alan Lord (theopensourcerer)]

@Andreas,

Thanks - that should do the trick!

[Chafnan (chafnan)]

@Andreas,

Worked for me too. Thank you!

[Nick Moffitt (nick-moffitt)]

How did the Debian maintainer react to this information about revision numbers? Do we have a commitment to package only stable releases under the 'rdiff-backup' package name? If so, then perhaps we can mark this as "Fix Released" in Ubuntu, since imports will never again grab a development release.

[Andreas Olsson (andol)]

@Nick: Never got any response on my mail to the Debian Maintainer. On the other hand, rdiff-backup has gotten a new Debain maintainer since then, so I guess I can send him the same question.

[Andreas Olsson (andol)]

Seems like the new Debian Maintainer, Carl Chenet, agrees about sticking to stable releases of rdiff-backup. To quote him directly: "I'll stick with the stable branch. I don't have any interest in a development version."

[Nick Moffitt (nick-moffitt)]

Well, so long as he's clear as to rdiff-backup's use of early Linux kernel version number schemes, I'd say that's good enough to mark this as "fix committed" :)

[Andreas Olsson (andol)]

Yeah, I'll mark this report as "Fix committed". This bug was to a large part the result of Ubuntu including rdiff-backup versions from its development branch. This most likely won't happen in the future since

a) We are aware of the problem.
b) Debian Unstable will contain version from the stable branch.