Many thanks, but the issue is not the spec or deb files. We have those. The problem is that the standard distributions spray Bacula files all over your system, and they spray them in different places. This makes it *very* hard to support, and hard to do backups of Bacula itself. Bacula uses its own /opt/bacula directory that permits easy installation, very easy testing of a new version with rapid backup, and very easy backup for catastrophic recovery situations.
Best regards, Kern On 11/27/2016 04:01 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote: > On Saturday 2016-11-26 10:00:39 Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Hello, >> >> We are working on it. Many of the binaries are already prepared, but >> the project is being held up because I must first finish an important >> programming task, then organize the upload and the hard part is making >> both deb and rpm based repos (probably on Source Forge). Finally, they >> must be documented as the file structure where Bacula is installed is >> the Bacula recommended file structure rather than the rather random and >> varying locations in the various Linux distributions. I seem to be >> quite poor in my estimations since there always seems to be something >> more critical, but I imagine we will have the binaries available by the >> first of 2017. >> >> Best regards, >> Kern > > Maybe you could consider using bacula rpm spec file maintained by Simone > Caronni who is also active on this mailinglist and he is maintaining > bacula packages for Fedora (they are also available for different Centos > versions). > > I have checked his spec file last year and it seems that his compile > options are almost same as mine own and I haven't found any objections > to his packages. > > This could make your work easier. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
