Helen Borrie wrote:

> At 06:57 PM 11/01/2007, you wrote:
>> Adam wrote:
>>> Uwe,
>>>
>>> Helen's post is 99% chance the problem you are facing.
>>>
>>> If you have not defined any ODS 11 specific features (eg, index with
>>> size over 250-something bytes, index on expressions), then you should
>>> be able to use the gbak from the 1.5 kit against your 2.0 server. This
>>> will create a fbk that 1.5 (or 2) can restore. Certainly worth a try.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>> No, i won't try a fb1.5 gbak.
>> It's not worth the effort.
>
> Huh? I thought the whole point was that you wanted your ubuntu users
> to use the database you created on Firebird 2.0. So Adam is only
> saying that you could put the Firebird 1.5 gbak.exe into the bin
> directory of your running Fb 2.0 server and use it to make a -t
> backup of your Fb 2.0 database that your ubuntu users *could* restore.
>

I know that i can use fb 1.5 gbak.
But it isn't my fault, that they expected a so called firebird2-package
to contain a firebird 2.0 version thing.

I warned them to use the original binaries from firebirdsql.org but this
user insisted to use the debian package.
He told me it would be easier to use.
At this point of time i for myself didn't know about this scary
naming convention which is used by debian/ubuntu.

>> I will tell ubuntu users that their version isn't what they think it is.
>
> That's certainly a good idea. Ubuntu users will just need to accept
> the compromise until someone is ready to port Firebird 2 and clean up
> Debian's naming scheme for their Firebird kits...
>
> ./heLen
>

I think they have to live with what they got if they think it would be
easier to use.
Other than that, they could install a real firebird 2.0 version.

Anyway, thank's for your effort,

Uwe