On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:13:33PM -0800, Jeffrey D Anderson wrote: > stan wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:12:36PM -0800, Jeffrey D Anderson wrote: > >> stan wrote: > >> > >> > I started a discussion about this the other day, and I am trying to > >> > work through this as a background task while doing the rest of the > >> > things i have to do. I thought I would point out what a PIA it is > >> > turning into to get newer version of Amanda compiled on older machines. > >> > > >> > The glib dependency requires gettext. Also glib will not compile with > >> > older versions of GCC. Now GCC used to build pretty well on older > >> > machines, but it looks like the 4.x version of it now depends upon a > >> > couple of math packages gmp, an mpfr. So, to migrate a given client > >> > (HP-UX in this case) Howard, I am having to compile the following list > >> > of things that did not used to be dependencies: > >> > > >> > gettext > >> > gmp > >> > mpfr > >> > gcc > >> > glub > >> > > >> > That's a lot of stuff just to replace working code with "more > >> > maintainable" code IMHO. > >> > > >> > I really think we need to come up with a plan that results in it being > >> > easier to comile clients on older machines. I have expressed my opinion > >> > that this needs to be a forkof a 2.5 branch, but I did not seem to get > >> > much in the way of buy in by others on this list ofr that. Does anyiine > >> > have a better plan? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> I have numerous clients still running amanda 2.4.x clients and talking to > >> my > >> 2.6.1 server. I would think that maintaining backward compatibility > >> within the amanda server is a more fruitful path than trying to build the > >> latest > >> version on all sorts of older platforms. Is there reason to believe that > >> older clients will become unsupported sometime soon? > >> > > Have you tried restoring? I have a contractor whose assignment is to prove > > that we can estore on evey machine in the backup system. She assures me > > that earlier cliets cannot do this, and that we must move foward. I have 2 > > reasons to beleive her. 1. I trust her, and have worked with her for > > years. 2. It's a fixed price job for here, and the answer she came up will > > definatley cost her money. > > > > > > I always restore on the server, then transfer files to the clients. That > clearly works. I can see that if you need to be able to run amrecover > directly on the clients there are more potential problems with old > versions. Note, though, that even if the amanda configuration is totally > broken, it is always POSSIBLE to restore just using dd and tar or dump. > Maybe not convenient, though. You never want to get to that stage if you > can avoid it. Thanks. I am actually _very_ awate of this, and have bailed myself out of all sorts of major diasasters using this. However, in my case, I need to be able to provide "user friendly" resore _on the client. It' is part of the requirments documnet for the system. I need to ahve a procedure usable by a resoanbly non technical user to acomplish this. amrecover is how I satisy thsi requirement.
-- One of the main causes of the fall of the roman empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.