From james at netinertia.co.uk Mon Feb 1 19:37:59 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:37:59 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] "Unsubscribed" notifications Message-ID: <88B79255-5919-4F39-84E8-F8F3E899ABFE@netinertia.co.uk> Dear all, Please ignore any "You have been unscubscribed" notifications you might be receiving - I'm disabling all access to the old listserver now that the new one seems to be working fully. Apologies for any inconvenience or confusion. Regards, James From lists at ebourne.me.uk Tue Feb 2 10:50:38 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:20:38 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> Message-ID: <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:41 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > As this is a significant license change, I would like to point out that > although I have committed the changes, they do not apply to any release > currently made, and can be reverted easily if anyone objects. The most > significant consequence is that it is not legal to distribute code linked > against the both GNU readline library and either OpenSSL or VSS, as we had > hoped it would be. Actually it is still possible to distribute binaries linked with readline, at least on Linux, because OpenSSL is considered a system library since it ships with the base OS and the vanilla GPL already exempts system libraries. http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 I don't anything about VSS, if that ships with the regular windows install then that would be covered too, if it's an addon then it needs the exception. Cheers, Martin From rnhurt at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 11:00:12 2010 From: rnhurt at gmail.com (Richard Hurt) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:00:12 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> Message-ID: <712ba87c1002020300u46fd5fb6w67559cb1111aef27@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Achim and all, > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Achim wrote: > > One thing just came to my mind about the relicensing under BSD and GPL: >> Back in June we had a (small) discussion about the possibility of linking to >> Microsofts's VSS headers. I quote verbatim from my message then, and wanted >> to ask if we could add that exception to the GPL version under which you >> will release 0.11, in order to have at least the legal aspects covered, not >> to talk about the missing implementation ;-) >> > > Thanks for reminding me about this. It's actually a significant problem for > relicensing Box Backup under the GPL, because we cannot legally link with > OpenSSL. > > I have created a new license that includes similar exemptions to the ones > used by Bacula, although I have reworded them because in my view the Bacula > versions allow a significant loophole in the GPL, by allowing third parties > to create customised versions of OpenSSL including whatever code they want > (e.g. a competing backup application), and linking the GPL code against > those libraries without disclosing the source. > > As this is a significant license change, I would like to point out that > although I have committed the changes, they do not apply to any release > currently made, and can be reverted easily if anyone objects. The most > significant consequence is that it is not legal to distribute code linked > against the both GNU readline library and either OpenSSL or VSS, as we had > hoped it would be. > > I have therefore included another clause that allows distribution of the > code and compiled binaries under the pure GPL, however I think this will be > of limited utility as it does not legally allow linking to OpenSSL. > > You may view the changes here: > [http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/changeset/2600] > Please let me know if you have any objection to this new license. > My only objection is from a theoretical standpoint. Creating yet another new version of an open source license is generally a very bad thing and only serves to confuse people and cause problems down the road. I thought the whole point of re-licensing was to clean this up. -- Later... ? http://KangarooBox.com - We make IT simple! Richard ? http://MynaStuff.com - Keep track of your stuff. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at qwirx.com Tue Feb 2 11:05:29 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:05:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <712ba87c1002020300u46fd5fb6w67559cb1111aef27@mail.gmail.com> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <712ba87c1002020300u46fd5fb6w67559cb1111aef27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Richard, On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Richard Hurt wrote: > My only objection is from a theoretical standpoint. Creating yet > another new version of an open source license is generally a very bad > thing and only serves to confuse people and cause problems down the > road. I thought the whole point of re-licensing was to clean this up. I kind of agree with your point, although I'm more in favour of the practicality of supporting VSS than the theory of having a pure GPL license. You can also distribute Box Backup under the pure GPL if you wish. That is explicitly allowed by the new license. The additional clauses are optional. Also, the original reason for relicensing was to clear Fedora's objections to distributing the Box Backup package, not to have a standard license for its own sake. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From james at netinertia.co.uk Tue Feb 2 18:49:52 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:49:52 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> On 2 Feb 2010, at 10:50, Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 22:41 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> As this is a significant license change, I would like to point out that >> although I have committed the changes, they do not apply to any release >> currently made, and can be reverted easily if anyone objects. The most >> significant consequence is that it is not legal to distribute code linked >> against the both GNU readline library and either OpenSSL or VSS, as we had >> hoped it would be. > > Actually it is still possible to distribute binaries linked with > readline, at least on Linux, because OpenSSL is considered a system > library since it ships with the base OS and the vanilla GPL already > exempts system libraries. FWIW, a member of the FreeBSD Ports Management team told me there's no license issue creating binaries linked against readline, and subsequently removed that restriction from the FreeBSD port of Box Backup. James From siretart at tauware.de Tue Feb 2 22:32:04 2010 From: siretart at tauware.de (Reinhard Tartler) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:32:04 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> (James O'Gorman's message of "Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:49:52 +0000") References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> Message-ID: <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Di, Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49:52 (CET), James O'Gorman wrote: > FWIW, a member of the FreeBSD Ports Management team told me there's no > license issue creating binaries linked against readline, but distributing the resulting binaries remains an issue -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 From james at netinertia.co.uk Wed Feb 3 08:30:29 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:30:29 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> On 2 Feb 2010, at 22:32, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Di, Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49:52 (CET), James O'Gorman wrote: > >> FWIW, a member of the FreeBSD Ports Management team told me there's no >> license issue creating binaries linked against readline, > > but distributing the resulting binaries remains an issue I don't believe so. See the commit messages for revisions 1.8 and 1.9 of the port: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/boxbackup/Makefile#rev1.9 James From lists at ebourne.me.uk Wed Feb 3 14:36:27 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:06:27 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> Message-ID: <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 08:30 +0000, James O'Gorman wrote: > On 2 Feb 2010, at 22:32, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > On Di, Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49:52 (CET), James O'Gorman wrote: > > > >> FWIW, a member of the FreeBSD Ports Management team told me there's no > >> license issue creating binaries linked against readline, > > > > but distributing the resulting binaries remains an issue > > I don't believe so. See the commit messages for revisions 1.8 and 1.9 > of the port: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/boxbackup/Makefile#rev1.9 I think there's some very faulty reasoning there. The OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the GPL because it adds extra restrictions (advertising requirements) and the GPL doesn't let you do that. Therefore if you built a binary of both and then distributed it you'd have to follow both licences, which you can't do by definition. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/bsd.html If OpenSSL was provided as a system library but GNU readline was not then the combination might work, but for an OS distributor this is unlikely to work. Chris has added an optional exception for OpenSSL to Box backup but no such exception exists for GNU readline which is GPL. Cheers, Martin From siretart at tauware.de Wed Feb 3 21:53:50 2010 From: siretart at tauware.de (Reinhard Tartler) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:53:50 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> (Martin Ebourne's message of "Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:06:27 +1030") References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <87k4uuvvdd.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Mi, Feb 03, 2010 at 15:36:27 (CET), Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 08:30 +0000, James O'Gorman wrote: >> On 2 Feb 2010, at 22:32, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> >> > On Di, Feb 02, 2010 at 19:49:52 (CET), James O'Gorman wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, a member of the FreeBSD Ports Management team told me there's no >> >> license issue creating binaries linked against readline, >> > >> > but distributing the resulting binaries remains an issue >> >> I don't believe so. See the commit messages for revisions 1.8 and 1.9 >> of the port: >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/boxbackup/Makefile#rev1.9 > > I think there's some very faulty reasoning there. I agree, that link does not relate to binary distribution at all. > The OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the GPL because it adds extra > restrictions (advertising requirements) and the GPL doesn't let you do > that. Therefore if you built a binary of both and then distributed it > you'd have to follow both licences, which you can't do by definition. > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/bsd.html > > If OpenSSL was provided as a system library but GNU readline was not > then the combination might work, but for an OS distributor this is > unlikely to work. Chris has added an optional exception for OpenSSL to > Box backup but no such exception exists for GNU readline which is GPL. Excatly. I wonder if the boxbackup license could have an other exception for gnu readline in addition to OpenSSL. This way I could enable readline support for the debian and ubuntu packages. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 From lists at ebourne.me.uk Wed Feb 3 23:57:08 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:27:08 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <87k4uuvvdd.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <87k4uuvvdd.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <1265241428.2840.20.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:53 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Excatly. I wonder if the boxbackup license could have an other exception > for gnu readline in addition to OpenSSL. This way I could enable > readline support for the debian and ubuntu packages. No that doesn't work. It's not the bb licence that's incompatible any more, but the gnu readline (vanilla GPL) is incompatible with OpenSSL (combined licence). You can't link the two together into the same executable if you're distributing them, and there's nothing bb can do to change the readline licence of course. There is already a solution of course, I added libedit support ages ago which is just the same as readline but under a BSD licence, simply link to that instead (use the configure switch). Cheers, Martin From siretart at tauware.de Thu Feb 4 12:23:52 2010 From: siretart at tauware.de (Reinhard Tartler) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:23:52 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1265241428.2840.20.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> (Martin Ebourne's message of "Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:27:08 +1030") References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <87k4uuvvdd.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1265241428.2840.20.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <87iqadur3b.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Do, Feb 04, 2010 at 00:57:08 (CET), Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:53 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> Excatly. I wonder if the boxbackup license could have an other exception >> for gnu readline in addition to OpenSSL. This way I could enable >> readline support for the debian and ubuntu packages. > > No that doesn't work. It's not the bb licence that's incompatible any > more, but the gnu readline (vanilla GPL) is incompatible with OpenSSL > (combined licence). You can't link the two together into the same > executable if you're distributing them, and there's nothing bb can do to > change the readline licence of course. ok, point taken > There is already a solution of course, I added libedit support ages ago > which is just the same as readline but under a BSD licence, simply link > to that instead (use the configure switch). yes, the debian package used this since the very first upload. However, BSD editline still lacks functionality present in GNU readline. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 From achim+box at qustodium.net Thu Feb 4 12:56:20 2010 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:56:20 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1265241428.2840.20.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> <1265107838.2504.114.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <88C32048-1148-4867-A4AA-7917D06C593E@netinertia.co.uk> <87hbpzxo9n.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <64A1D2AF-1C0F-42E4-BCB9-B5FD587C5672@netinertia.co.uk> <1265207787.2840.11.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <87k4uuvvdd.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1265241428.2840.20.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <7ca0c95c976428fbf32c703b7f837aea@localhost> Hello Martin: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:27:08 +1030, Martin Ebourne wrote: > There is already a solution of course, I added libedit support ages ago > which is just the same as readline but under a BSD licence, simply link > to that instead (use the configure switch). Would it be possible to enable that for the Windows builds as well? Does a "port" exist of libedit to cywgin/mingw? Thanks, Achim From maillist at diffingo.com Fri Feb 5 01:36:39 2010 From: maillist at diffingo.com (Stewart Adam) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:36:39 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> Message-ID: <4B6B7627.50903@diffingo.com> On 2010/01/31 4:41 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > You may view the changes here: > [http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/changeset/2600] Tom ("Spot") from Fedora Legal just approved the license for Box Backup and wanted me to pass on his thanks for the thorough and well-thought out re-licensing process. I also wanted to mention that I appreciate your quick response to this problem, it's been a pleasure using Box Backup and I'm very happy that we can have it distributed in the Fedora and EPEL repositories! Stewart From achim+box at qustodium.net Fri Feb 5 14:42:32 2010 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:42:32 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Next round: UI Ideas for Boxi Message-ID: <28d7c5c8204c6b5729607e338555ed4d@localhost> Hello list: I am aware that the last round of discussion around UI improvement for Boxi [1] did not create a lot of attention: to my surprise, I must admit. In the (apparently unlikely ;) case somebody is interested, I have found some nice ideas on how to visualise the aging of backups or files contained therin via "Temporal User Interfaces" that could be a great idea for the restore interface: http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/03/05/temporal-user-interfaces/ http://www.iola.dk/nemo/blog/?p=3 In general terms, I still believe that making the Boxi UI simpler would be a great way to increase Box Backup's exposure. Below some more more inspiration [2, 3, 4, 5], perhaps somebody else sees the need for simplification and could help with this? Best regards, Achim [1] [2] THE TWO KEY PRINCIPLES OF TIME MACHINE simplicity and contextuality blast other backup utilities out of the water [3] Simple start-screen [4] Somewhat more complicated [5] Another nice idea: context menus From rnhurt at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 14:53:05 2010 From: rnhurt at gmail.com (Richard Hurt) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:53:05 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Next round: UI Ideas for Boxi In-Reply-To: <28d7c5c8204c6b5729607e338555ed4d@localhost> References: <28d7c5c8204c6b5729607e338555ed4d@localhost> Message-ID: <712ba87c1002050653g1ecc5c18rc74178aa1cfa3dcf@mail.gmail.com> All I know is that before Time Machine nobody I knew ever backed up anything (including me!). It is almost harder to *not* use TM than to just let it do its thing. I know we cant make it that simple and work with native programs on the host OS but we should strive for removing everything that isn't absolutely necessary, and then even remove those things that are absolutely necessary. That's just my $.02 -- Later... ? http://KangarooBox.com - We make IT simple! Richard ? http://MynaStuff.com - Keep track of your stuff. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Achim > wrote: > Hello list: > > I am aware that the last round of discussion around UI improvement for > Boxi [1] did not create a lot of attention: to my surprise, I must admit. > > In the (apparently unlikely ;) case somebody is interested, I have found > some nice ideas on how to visualise the aging of backups or files contained > therin via "Temporal User Interfaces" that could be a great idea for the > restore interface: > > http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/03/05/temporal-user-interfaces/ > http://www.iola.dk/nemo/blog/?p=3 > > In general terms, I still believe that making the Boxi UI simpler would be > a great way to increase Box Backup's exposure. Below some more more > inspiration [2, 3, 4, 5], perhaps somebody else sees the need for > simplification and could help with this? > > Best regards, Achim > > [1] > > > > [2] THE TWO KEY PRINCIPLES OF TIME MACHINE > simplicity and contextuality blast other backup utilities out of the water > < > http://homepage.mac.com/simx/technonova/rants/the_two_key_principles_of_time_machine.html > > > > [3] Simple start-screen > > > [4] Somewhat more complicated > < > http://techpp.com/2009/07/01/cloudberry-online-backup-amazon-s3-restore-program/ > > > > [5] Another nice idea: context menus > > > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at bwi.com Sun Feb 7 01:07:34 2010 From: bill at bwi.com (Bill West) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Can't build on DEBIAN Squeeze Message-ID: Here is the result of trying to build from 0.10 tarball on Debian Squeeze, as of 06FEB10. Debian has prebuilt binaries for 0.11, but I am upgrading from 0.9 and the instructions for 0.11 say upgrade to 0.10 first. Sorry I don't have more info but it is late. I will look at this more tomorrow. ------------- ### tail of configure output A summary of the build configuration is below. Box Backup will function without these features, but will work better where they are present. Refer to the documentation for more information on each feature. Large files: yes Berkeley DB: yes Readline: no Extended attributes: yes ### try to make it plover:/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10# make test -d parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu || mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=1) make[1]: Entering directory `/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10/bin/bbackupd' g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.10\"" -g -Wall -c BackupDaemon.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o In file included from BackupClientContext.h:53, from BackupDaemon.cpp:93: ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function 'static void* BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkAlloc(int)': ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:189: error: 'malloc' was not declared in this scope ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function 'static void BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkFree(void*)': ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:210: error: 'free' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10/bin/bbackupd' make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu.tgz] Error 2 plover:/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10# ------------- Bill West BWI 887 Main Street, Suite D Monroe, Connecticut 06468-2800 877 567-7450, 203 261-6027 FAX 203 261-5061 info at bwi.com http://www.bwi.com BWI and RackPaq are registered trademarks of Bill West Incorporated Destwin is a trademark of DESTWIN, LLC. From bill at bwi.com Sun Feb 7 19:44:06 2010 From: bill at bwi.com (Bill West) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:44:06 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] UPDATE: Can't build on DEBIAN Squeeze Message-ID: Followup to yesterday's email. I can build on a different box with an older version of gcc/g++. Here is the gcc version info from the box I CAN'T build on: ------------- plover:/md0# gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.4.2-9' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --enable-multiarch --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.4 --program-suffix=-4.4 --enable-nls --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-objc-gc --enable-targets=all --with-arch-32=i486 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=i486-linux-gnu --host=i486-linux-gnu --target=i486-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.4.3 20100108 (prerelease) (Debian 4.4.2-9) plover:/md0# ------------- Here is the gcc version info from the box I CAN build on: ------------- lv672:/home/bill# gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i486-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2 --program-suffix=-4.2 --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-mpfr --enable-targets=all --disable-werror --enable-checking=release --build=i486-linux-gnu --host=i486-linux-gnu --target=i486-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 (Debian 4.2.1-3) lv672:/home/bill# ------------- Let me know if any more info will be helpful. Bill West ----------------------- Previous Message -------------------------------------- Here is the result of trying to build from 0.10 tarball on Debian Squeeze, as of 06FEB10. Debian has prebuilt binaries for 0.11, but I am upgrading from 0.9 and the instructions for 0.11 say upgrade to 0.10 first. Sorry I don't have more info but it is late. I will look at this more tomorrow. ------------- ### tail of configure output A summary of the build configuration is below. Box Backup will function without these features, but will work better where they are present. Refer to the documentation for more information on each feature. Large files: yes Berkeley DB: yes Readline: no Extended attributes: yes ### try to make it plover:/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10# make test -d parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu || mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=1) make[1]: Entering directory `/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10/bin/bbackupd' g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.10\"" -g -Wall -c BackupDaemon.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o In file included from BackupClientContext.h:53, from BackupDaemon.cpp:93: ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function 'static void* BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkAlloc(int)': ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:189: error: 'malloc' was not declared in this scope ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function 'static void BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkFree(void*)': ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:210: error: 'free' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10/bin/bbackupd' make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.10-backup-client-linux-gnu.tgz] Error 2 plover:/data/bbackup-0.10/boxbackup-0.10# ------------- Bill West BWI 887 Main Street, Suite D Monroe, Connecticut 06468-2800 877 567-7450, 203 261-6027 FAX 203 261-5061 info at bwi.com http://www.bwi.com BWI and RackPaq are registered trademarks of Bill West Incorporated Destwin is a trademark of DESTWIN, LLC. From chris at qwirx.com Sun Feb 7 22:10:30 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:10:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Can't build on DEBIAN Squeeze In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Bill West wrote: > Here is the result of trying to build from 0.10 tarball on Debian > Squeeze, as of 06FEB10. Debian has prebuilt binaries for 0.11, but I am > upgrading from 0.9 and the instructions for 0.11 say upgrade to 0.10 > first. Sorry, I think this information is outdated. I don't have any reason to suspect that moving directly to 0.11 would be a bad idea, and 0.10 doesn't build on most modern platforms anyway. However, please read the changelog for 0.11 carefully to ensure that none of the changes will badly affect you. I have changed the documentation to match. You will also have to upgrade the server and all clients at about the same time, or make a transition plan with new copies of the accounts, as 0.9 client unfortunately cannot talk to a 0.10 or 0.11 server. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 8 11:59:53 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:59:53 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries Message-ID: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> Hi all, I removed some entries in my bbackupd.conf file a while ago, that I don't want to backup anymore. But they are still on the backup server. I thought that with: http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/ticket/18 the entries that were removed were stored in object info file. So that they were deleted after two days, even if the PC or Box Backup was shutdown. Now I'm almost sure that my PC in the time between removal of those entries and now, the PC has been on for more than two days. So it should be removed either way. Is this a bug or did I do something wrong? I use 2520 on Windows XP, with a trunk_2373 on the server. Cheers, Roy PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? From chris at qwirx.com Mon Feb 8 13:00:21 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:00:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > I removed some entries in my bbackupd.conf file a while ago, that I > don't want to backup anymore. But they are still on the backup server. I > thought that with: http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/ticket/18 the entries > that were removed were stored in object info file. So that they were > deleted after two days, even if the PC or Box Backup was shutdown. Now > I'm almost sure that my PC in the time between removal of those entries > and now, the PC has been on for more than two days. So it should be > removed either way. Is this a bug or did I do something wrong? I use > 2520 on Windows XP, with a trunk_2373 on the server. It should be working. It's all down to the client, the server version doesn't matter. Could you check your event logs for any messages about "redundant locations" or "unused entries"? You could also try running bbackupd from the command line with the "-v" option to see what it says about deleting the unused entries (or not). > PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different > attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac ticket for it. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 8 13:41:43 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:41:43 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> Hi Chris, I'm sorry, but I did make a mistake. I thought the entries were still there, but that were different ones that looked like them. But I did add some comments for other users that may be helpful. Also a question: Will messages about redundant locations or unused entries show up at the info level? Or do you need trace or even everything? Because that produces a lot of data if LogAllFileAccess is also enabled (more than 500MB in 12 hours). Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Roy, > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > >> I removed some entries in my bbackupd.conf file a while ago, that I >> don't want to backup anymore. But they are still on the backup >> server. I thought that with: http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/ticket/18 >> the entries that were removed were stored in object info file. So >> that they were deleted after two days, even if the PC or Box Backup >> was shutdown. Now I'm almost sure that my PC in the time between >> removal of those entries and now, the PC has been on for more than >> two days. So it should be removed either way. Is this a bug or did I >> do something wrong? I use 2520 on Windows XP, with a trunk_2373 on >> the server. > > It should be working. It's all down to the client, the server version > doesn't matter. Could you check your event logs for any messages about > "redundant locations" or "unused entries"? You could also try running > bbackupd from the command line with the "-v" option to see what it > says about deleting the unused entries (or not). I enabled logging in Box Backup by the following settings: LogFile = C:\Program Files\Box Backup\bbackupd.log LogFileLevel = info In the eventlog I see the following message, if BB is (re)started: WARNING: Store object info file out of date. Will re-cache from store. (C:\Program Files\Box Backup\bbackupd\bbackupd.state) > >> PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different >> attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? > > No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac ticket > for it. > > Cheers, Chris. I will do, but I have to get an account first. I get a lot of these messages when I do a compare. And because Box Backup doesn't update those attributes I get them over and over again. It is not a really big deal, but I get lot's of error when I compare, so this clutters my view. And, off course, the attributes aren't saved correctly. Cheers, Roy From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 8 13:46:51 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:46:51 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B7015CB.3040900@hostingbrothers.nl> Hi Chris, I was to fast with replying. Because I didn't use ls -d to show those deleted root entries (and previously I saw it in Boxi, which shows them by default). Now I know how I got confused, because they are still there. But that's normal I think?. They only should be deleted when housekeeping decides it? Cheers, Roy Roy wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I'm sorry, but I did make a mistake. I thought the entries were still > there, but that were different ones that looked like them. > But I did add some comments for other users that may be helpful. > > Also a question: > Will messages about redundant locations or unused entries show up at > the info level? Or do you need trace or even everything? Because that > produces a lot of data if LogAllFileAccess is also enabled (more than > 500MB in 12 hours). > > Chris Wilson wrote: >> Hi Roy, >> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: >> >>> I removed some entries in my bbackupd.conf file a while ago, that I >>> don't want to backup anymore. But they are still on the backup >>> server. I thought that with: http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/ticket/18 >>> the entries that were removed were stored in object info file. So >>> that they were deleted after two days, even if the PC or Box Backup >>> was shutdown. Now I'm almost sure that my PC in the time between >>> removal of those entries and now, the PC has been on for more than >>> two days. So it should be removed either way. Is this a bug or did I >>> do something wrong? I use 2520 on Windows XP, with a trunk_2373 on >>> the server. >> >> It should be working. It's all down to the client, the server version >> doesn't matter. Could you check your event logs for any messages >> about "redundant locations" or "unused entries"? You could also try >> running bbackupd from the command line with the "-v" option to see >> what it says about deleting the unused entries (or not). > I enabled logging in Box Backup by the following settings: > LogFile = C:\Program Files\Box Backup\bbackupd.log > LogFileLevel = info > > In the eventlog I see the following message, if BB is (re)started: > WARNING: Store object info file out of date. Will re-cache from store. > (C:\Program Files\Box Backup\bbackupd\bbackupd.state) > >> >>> PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different >>> attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? >> >> No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac ticket >> for it. >> >> Cheers, Chris. > I will do, but I have to get an account first. I get a lot of these > messages when I do a compare. And because Box Backup doesn't update > those attributes I get them over and over again. It is not a really > big deal, but I get lot's of error when I compare, so this clutters my > view. And, off course, the attributes aren't saved correctly. > > Cheers, > > Roy > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > !DSPAM:4b7014c2118151804284693! > From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 8 13:49:06 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:49:06 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Trac account Message-ID: <4B701652.6090902@hostingbrothers.nl> Hi admins, Can I get a Trac account? I need to add an issue to the tracker (see Re: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries; 14:41). Thanks in advance, Roy From chris at qwirx.com Mon Feb 8 13:54:04 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:54:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B7015CB.3040900@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7015CB.3040900@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > I was to fast with replying. Because I didn't use ls -d to show those > deleted root entries (and previously I saw it in Boxi, which shows them > by default). Now I know how I got confused, because they are still > there. But that's normal I think?. They only should be deleted when > housekeeping decides it? Yes, exactly. They will be kept as long as there is space on the store. >> Will messages about redundant locations or unused entries show up at >> the info level? Or do you need trace or even everything? Because that >> produces a lot of data if LogAllFileAccess is also enabled (more than >> 500MB in 12 hours). The "redundant locations" message is NOTICE level which is enabled by default. The "unused entries" messages are at INFO level which you may need to run with -v to see. You don't need LogAllFileAccess. >> In the eventlog I see the following message, if BB is (re)started: >> WARNING: Store object info file out of date. Will re-cache from store. >> (C:\Program Files\Box Backup\bbackupd\bbackupd.state) That is normal if you shut down bbackupd while a backup was in progress, or otherwise not cleanly. Stopping the service or using bbackupquery terminate should cause a clean shutdown and then you should not see this message. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 8 14:15:37 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:15:37 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Next round: UI Ideas for Boxi In-Reply-To: <28d7c5c8204c6b5729607e338555ed4d@localhost> References: <28d7c5c8204c6b5729607e338555ed4d@localhost> Message-ID: <4B701C89.4050405@hostingbrothers.nl> Hi, I haven't thought about a new design yet, but maybe we can start by creating a bug free version of Boxi. And if that's done, we can think about redesigning Boxi. Because the underlying code can be used for that as well. Then we have a good working version of Boxi when the redesigning takes place. Cheers, Roy Achim wrote: > Hello list: > > I am aware that the last round of discussion around UI improvement for > Boxi [1] did not create a lot of attention: to my surprise, I must admit. > > In the (apparently unlikely ;) case somebody is interested, I have found > some nice ideas on how to visualise the aging of backups or files contained > therin via "Temporal User Interfaces" that could be a great idea for the > restore interface: > > http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2009/03/05/temporal-user-interfaces/ > http://www.iola.dk/nemo/blog/?p=3 > > In general terms, I still believe that making the Boxi UI simpler would be > a great way to increase Box Backup's exposure. Below some more more > inspiration [2, 3, 4, 5], perhaps somebody else sees the need for > simplification and could help with this? > > Best regards, Achim > > [1] > > > [2] THE TWO KEY PRINCIPLES OF TIME MACHINE > simplicity and contextuality blast other backup utilities out of the water > > > [3] Simple start-screen > > > [4] Somewhat more complicated > > > [5] Another nice idea: context menus > > > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > !DSPAM:4b6c2e85169641810014612! > > From chris at qwirx.com Thu Feb 11 08:41:05 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:41:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: >>> PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different >>> attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? >> >> No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac ticket >> for it. > > I will do, but I have to get an account first. I get a lot of these > messages when I do a compare. And because Box Backup doesn't update > those attributes I get them over and over again. It is not a really big > deal, but I get lot's of error when I compare, so this clutters my view. > And, off course, the attributes aren't saved correctly. I'm afraid I will need you to collect some more information for me. I've uploaded a new Windows build which contains additional debugging logging statements, which you can download here: http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/boxbackup-trunk_2604-backup-client-mingw32.zip If you run the new build of bbackupquery with the "-V" option, and compare, you should see a line with "Attribute Compare:" in the output, before each comparison failure: TRACE: Attribute Compare: File modification times differ: local 1605940943, remote 1839817581 WARNING: Local file 'testfiles/TestDir1/tracked-2' has different attributes to store file '/Test1/tracked-2'. Please tell me what those lines say (by private email if they contain sensitive information). Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Fri Feb 12 20:11:34 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:11:34 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Roy, > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > >>>> PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different >>>> attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? >>> >>> No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac >>> ticket for it. >> >> I will do, but I have to get an account first. I get a lot of these >> messages when I do a compare. And because Box Backup doesn't update >> those attributes I get them over and over again. It is not a really >> big deal, but I get lot's of error when I compare, so this clutters >> my view. And, off course, the attributes aren't saved correctly. > > I'm afraid I will need you to collect some more information for me. > I've uploaded a new Windows build which contains additional debugging > logging statements, which you can download here: > > http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/boxbackup-trunk_2604-backup-client-mingw32.zip > > > If you run the new build of bbackupquery with the "-V" option, and > compare, you should see a line with "Attribute Compare:" in the > output, before each comparison failure: > > TRACE: Attribute Compare: File modification times differ: local > 1605940943, remote 1839817581 > WARNING: Local file 'testfiles/TestDir1/tracked-2' has different > attributes to store file '/Test1/tracked-2'. > > Please tell me what those lines say (by private email if they contain > sensitive information). > > Cheers, Chris. Hi Chris, I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will run a compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send you the results. I will run it like this: bbackupquery -V -c bbackupd.conf -o bbackupquery.log -O warning "compare -a" quit Is that correct? Because I want it in a logfile and this worked with the previous version (only tested without -V). Cheers, Roy From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Sun Feb 14 15:11:36 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:11:36 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> Roy wrote: > Chris Wilson wrote: >> Hi Roy, >> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: >> >>>>> PS. Chris; is there already a solution for files with different >>>>> attributes on the store in comparison to the local file? >>>> >>>> No, please remind me of the issue, or preferably create a Trac >>>> ticket for it. >>> >>> I will do, but I have to get an account first. I get a lot of these >>> messages when I do a compare. And because Box Backup doesn't update >>> those attributes I get them over and over again. It is not a really >>> big deal, but I get lot's of error when I compare, so this clutters >>> my view. And, off course, the attributes aren't saved correctly. >> >> I'm afraid I will need you to collect some more information for me. >> I've uploaded a new Windows build which contains additional debugging >> logging statements, which you can download here: >> >> http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/boxbackup-trunk_2604-backup-client-mingw32.zip >> >> >> If you run the new build of bbackupquery with the "-V" option, and >> compare, you should see a line with "Attribute Compare:" in the >> output, before each comparison failure: >> >> TRACE: Attribute Compare: File modification times differ: local >> 1605940943, remote 1839817581 >> WARNING: Local file 'testfiles/TestDir1/tracked-2' has different >> attributes to store file '/Test1/tracked-2'. >> >> Please tell me what those lines say (by private email if they contain >> sensitive information). >> >> Cheers, Chris. > Hi Chris, > > I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will run a > compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send you the > results. > I will run it like this: > bbackupquery -V -c bbackupd.conf -o bbackupquery.log -O warning > "compare -a" quit > Is that correct? Because I want it in a logfile and this worked with > the previous version (only tested without -V). > > Cheers, > > Roy > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > !DSPAM:4b75b622156451804284693! > Hi Chris, Unfortunately it failed. The log doesn't contain those messages and the command windows was closed after running the batch file. So I have to do it again. Maybe in a new version the messages can be send to the logfile as well? I'll run it again tonight. Cheers, Roy From chris at qwirx.com Mon Feb 15 08:25:47 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:25:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: >>>> I get a lot of these messages when I do a compare. And because Box >>>> Backup doesn't update those attributes I get them over and over >>>> again. It is not a really big deal, but I get lot's of error when I >>>> compare, so this clutters my view. And, off course, the attributes >>>> aren't saved correctly. >>> >>> I'm afraid I will need you to collect some more information for me. >>> I've uploaded a new Windows build which contains additional debugging >>> logging statements, which you can download here: >>> >>> http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/boxbackup-trunk_2604-backup-client-mingw32.zip >> >> I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will run a >> compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send you the results. Great, thanks :) >> I will run it like this: >> bbackupquery -V -c bbackupd.conf -o bbackupquery.log -O warning "compare >> -a" quit >> Is that correct? Because I want it in a logfile and this worked with the >> previous version (only tested without -V). I think that should work fine. The log level in the logfile will not be affected by the -V option, so if you want to see these new messages in your logfile, you'll need to use "-O trace" instead of "-V -O warning". > Unfortunately it failed. The log doesn't contain those messages and the > command windows was closed after running the batch file. So I have to do > it again. Maybe in a new version the messages can be send to the logfile > as well? Yes, see above. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Mon Feb 15 12:56:35 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:56:35 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Roy, > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > >>>>> I get a lot of these messages when I do a compare. And because Box >>>>> Backup doesn't update those attributes I get them over and over >>>>> again. It is not a really big deal, but I get lot's of error when >>>>> I compare, so this clutters my view. And, off course, the >>>>> attributes aren't saved correctly. >>>> >>>> I'm afraid I will need you to collect some more information for me. >>>> I've uploaded a new Windows build which contains additional >>>> debugging logging statements, which you can download here: >>>> >>>> http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/boxbackup-trunk_2604-backup-client-mingw32.zip >>>> >>> >>> I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will run >>> a compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send you the >>> results. > > Great, thanks :) Is send in a personal mail. > >>> I will run it like this: >>> bbackupquery -V -c bbackupd.conf -o bbackupquery.log -O warning >>> "compare -a" quit >>> Is that correct? Because I want it in a logfile and this worked with >>> the previous version (only tested without -V). > > I think that should work fine. The log level in the logfile will not > be affected by the -V option, so if you want to see these new messages > in your logfile, you'll need to use "-O trace" instead of "-V -O > warning". My mistake. I saw this later too, so no problems with logging anymore. But maybe to clear it up for everybody: I assume that the -V switch is only for the console. And the -O for the logfile. > >> Unfortunately it failed. The log doesn't contain those messages and >> the command windows was closed after running the batch file. So I >> have to do it again. Maybe in a new version the messages can be send >> to the logfile as well? > > Yes, see above. > > Cheers, Chris. Cheers, Roy From chris at qwirx.com Tue Feb 16 12:46:23 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:46:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: >>>> I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will run a >>>> compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send you the >>>> results. >> > Is send in a personal mail. Thanks for the logs. To help me to reproduce the problem, can you tell me: * What version of Windows this is on; * What filesystem this is on (and how it's mounted on the Windows machine, if it's not local, as it's drive D: and not C: that is being backed up); * Whether you run any other Windows clients, and if so which ones have this problem and which ones don't? Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Tue Feb 16 13:09:51 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:09:51 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B7A991F.5040406@hostingbrothers.nl> Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Roy, > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > >>>>> I'm back again and have just installed this new release. I will >>>>> run a compare run this night (takes about 5 hours) and will send >>>>> you the results. >>> >> Is send in a personal mail. > > Thanks for the logs. To help me to reproduce the problem, can you tell > me: > > * What version of Windows this is on; > > * What filesystem this is on (and how it's mounted on the Windows > machine, if it's not local, as it's drive D: and not C: that is being > backed up); > > * Whether you run any other Windows clients, and if so which ones have > this problem and which ones don't? > > Cheers, Chris. Hi Chris, This is on Windows XP SP2. The errors are on the d-drive, which is NTFS (all my drives are NTFS). But you could see in the logfile if it's c,d or e. All are local and NTFS. We also run it on Windows Server 2003 and another Windows XP machine. But I have to run a comparison run before I know if they have the same problems. Should I do that? Cheers, Roy From chris at qwirx.com Tue Feb 16 13:16:53 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:16:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: <4B7A991F.5040406@hostingbrothers.nl> References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7A991F.5040406@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: Hi Roy, On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > This is on Windows XP SP2. The errors are on the d-drive, which is NTFS > (all my drives are NTFS). But you could see in the logfile if it's c,d > or e. All are local and NTFS. We also run it on Windows Server 2003 and > another Windows XP machine. But I have to run a comparison run before I > know if they have the same problems. Should I do that? It would be great if you could. You should be able to run "compare -aq" which should be quicker than "compare -a" and should still pick up problems with attributes. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl Tue Feb 16 13:54:38 2010 From: boxbackup at hostingbrothers.nl (Roy) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:54:38 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Removing unused backup entries In-Reply-To: References: <4B6FFCB9.7040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B701497.8090704@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B75B5F6.4040407@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7812A8.2050107@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B794483.6020902@hostingbrothers.nl> <4B7A991F.5040406@hostingbrothers.nl> Message-ID: <4B7AA39E.2000105@hostingbrothers.nl> Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Roy, > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Roy wrote: > >> This is on Windows XP SP2. The errors are on the d-drive, which is >> NTFS (all my drives are NTFS). But you could see in the logfile if >> it's c,d or e. All are local and NTFS. We also run it on Windows >> Server 2003 and another Windows XP machine. But I have to run a >> comparison run before I know if they have the same problems. Should I >> do that? > > It would be great if you could. You should be able to run "compare > -aq" which should be quicker than "compare -a" and should still pick > up problems with attributes. > > Cheers, Chris. I'm running it now on the Windows Server 2003 machine. The other XP machine is my brothers, so I asked him to run it for me. Cheers, Roy From james at netinertia.co.uk Sat Feb 20 17:53:01 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:01 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Restoring from a Maildir folder Message-ID: <4930158A-FEF9-49D9-B507-2584AC0C8E82@netinertia.co.uk> I'm trying to restore a Maildir-style folder, but it looks like bbackupquery doesn't like directory names starting with a ".": query > cd /home/jamesog/Maildir query > ls [snip] 0002e8ca -d---- .Licences [snip] query > cd .Licenses Directory '.Licenses' not found The data does seem to be there, as 'ls -r' shows all files underneath. The client is v0.10 and the server is v0.11_trunk_2368. Has this been fixed in a version later than 0.10? If so I'll just upgrade it (which would actually give me a reason to sort the FreeBSD port out too :-)) Cheers James -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 486 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From james at netinertia.co.uk Sat Feb 20 18:10:03 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:10:03 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Restoring from a Maildir folder In-Reply-To: <4930158A-FEF9-49D9-B507-2584AC0C8E82@netinertia.co.uk> References: <4930158A-FEF9-49D9-B507-2584AC0C8E82@netinertia.co.uk> Message-ID: <23C33057-6557-488A-8D3F-796037F44ADA@netinertia.co.uk> *ahem* Never mind. I just can't spell :-) On 20 Feb 2010, at 17:53, James O'Gorman wrote: > I'm trying to restore a Maildir-style folder, but it looks like bbackupquery doesn't like directory names starting with a ".": > > query > cd /home/jamesog/Maildir > query > ls > [snip] > 0002e8ca -d---- .Licences > [snip] > query > cd .Licenses > Directory '.Licenses' not found ^ > The data does seem to be there, as 'ls -r' shows all files underneath. > > The client is v0.10 and the server is v0.11_trunk_2368. Has this been fixed in a version later than 0.10? If so I'll just upgrade it (which would actually give me a reason to sort the FreeBSD port out too :-)) > > Cheers > James_______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From chris at qwirx.com Sun Feb 28 17:04:48 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:04:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Data corruption bug in trunk > 2585 and 0.11rc6 Message-ID: Hi all, I've just discovered and fixed a potentially serious data corruption bug on the store server (bbstored) trunk revisions since 2585 (dated 11/11/09, ironically enough) and the tagged but unannounced 0.11rc6. The client is not affected. If you have installed any bbstored servers since 11/11/09, please check that you are not running 0.11rc6 or any trunk revision since 2585 on them. If you may have downloaded newer sources for testing, but not installed them, please double-check that the running and installed versions have not been accidentally updated. The problem comes from modifying an uninitialized part of an array in memory, which could potentially point to any part of memory. Therefore it might be exploitable, either to crash the server's housekeeping process (denial of service), or possibly to gain control of the server (I consider this unlikely, but conceivable). If you are running an affected server, please either downgrade to 0.11rc5 or upgrade to the latest trunk, and verify the backups of all clients using the affected server(s). I'm not exactly sure where or how to advertise this on the Box Backup website and wiki. Suggestions welcome. I offer my apologies for introducing this issue, and thanks to James O'Gorman for providing the test infrastructure that allowed me to find and fix this bug. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |