Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Adam Thornton wrote: > We should probably decide what the cutoff point should be, since it > looks like 1.39 will be a database change from 1.38. > > Now, I myself would really like 1.39 since it implements pool > migration, which is important to my installation. However, I think > 1.38.2 is really the bottom edge of what would be really useful, > since with that level you get VSS support and Mac OS X HFS+ support. > Storage encryption, which is somewhere in between 1.38.2 and 1.39, is > also probably of great interest to the casual user (now if the > backpack containing your DVD-ROM backup is swiped, the thief didn't > get all your personal data!). So the 1.38.3 port underway would be a > VAST improvement over 1.36.2. 1.38.5 is coming... will be finished this weekend, i hope. Meanwhile, monitor my semi-public APT repository: http://devel.adv-solutions.net/debian unstable main > I'm happy to beta-test and to do test builds on both i386 and s390 > machines (and yes, there is a demand, from me and my company at > least, for an s390 package). Wow!! That *really* motivates me... if only i had some more time.. :-D > I would second the sentiment that static linking, while it might be > nice, is much less necessary than simply having a modern Bacula > available on Debian. I don't mind a couple versions with too many > dependencies while we get it figured out, if I get to exploit VSS > support. Agreed. > I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. I'll need a bunch of beta-testing round-the-clock starting from saturday or so. Thanks Cheers, J.L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
We should probably decide what the cutoff point should be, since it looks like 1.39 will be a database change from 1.38. Now, I myself would really like 1.39 since it implements pool migration, which is important to my installation. However, I think 1.38.2 is really the bottom edge of what would be really useful, since with that level you get VSS support and Mac OS X HFS+ support. Storage encryption, which is somewhere in between 1.38.2 and 1.39, is also probably of great interest to the casual user (now if the backpack containing your DVD-ROM backup is swiped, the thief didn't get all your personal data!). So the 1.38.3 port underway would be a VAST improvement over 1.36.2. I'm happy to beta-test and to do test builds on both i386 and s390 machines (and yes, there is a demand, from me and my company at least, for an s390 package). I would second the sentiment that static linking, while it might be nice, is much less necessary than simply having a modern Bacula available on Debian. I don't mind a couple versions with too many dependencies while we get it figured out, if I get to exploit VSS support. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
> "JLT" == José Luis Tallón <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi again! JLT> Anders Boström wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Are there any progress in a 1.38 deb? >> JLT> I'm working on 1.38.3: Already added support for "native" TLS tunneling JLT> and Python, plus created the bacula-traymonitor package :-) JLT> I am stuck with static linking of the tools :-S >> Can I help in any way? >> >> JLT> If you are able to make the tools (bscan, bcopy) link statically with JLT> the massive amount of dependencies they have, you're most welcome. JLT> Otherwise, i will be needing beta-testers soon (hopefully) I compiled bacula 1.38.5 without much trouble with dynamic linking. And yes, it seems hard to compile bscan and bcopy static (I didn't try *that* hard...). However, is static linking needed? Why? I can see some obvious advantages with static linking, most notably less dependencies on other packages, but is it really needed? A dynamic linked 1.38.5 might be better than a static 1.36... / Anders
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Anders Boström wrote: >Hi! > >Are there any progress in a 1.38 deb? > I'm working on 1.38.3: Already added support for "native" TLS tunneling and Python, plus created the bacula-traymonitor package :-) I am stuck with static linking of the tools :-S >Can I help in any way? > > If you are able to make the tools (bscan, bcopy) link statically with the massive amount of dependencies they have, you're most welcome. Otherwise, i will be needing beta-testers soon (hopefully) >/ Anders > > Tack för hjälpen :-) Mvh / J.L.
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Hi! Are there any progress in a 1.38 deb? Can I help in any way? / Anders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Le jeudi 29 décembre 2005 à 22:44 +0100, José Luis Tallón a écrit : > Jérôme Warnier wrote: > > >Can we contribute? I'm waiting for a new version since September. > > > > > Sorry. I have been away on vacation, and just resumed work. No problem, you're Free to take your vacation whenever you like. ;-) > Bacula has changed quite a bit while i was this busy... and so i have to > make quite some modifications to the packaging. I understood that from previous e-mails and answers to bug reports. > The biggest problem lies with the documentation (which i will have to > exclude for a while). Apart from this, i expect to be able to release > "something" on monday. Quickly, what is the problem with the documentation? Anyway, I don't care about the documentation being packaged at the moment. > I will then need some help with beta-testing, specially DB updates. Any > comments on this?? Well, I only have one real install, but in production. Wait... I just remember I have an AIT around here. So I may even test it as soon as the new packages are available. > Thank you for your offer, and my apologies for the delays. Don't worry. > Happy New Year! You too! > Best, > J.L.
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Jérôme Warnier wrote: >Can we contribute? I'm waiting for a new version since September. > > Sorry. I have been away on vacation, and just resumed work. Bacula has changed quite a bit while i was this busy... and so i have to make quite some modifications to the packaging. The biggest problem lies with the documentation (which i will have to exclude for a while). Apart from this, i expect to be able to release "something" on monday. I will then need some help with beta-testing, specially DB updates. Any comments on this?? Thank you for your offer, and my apologies for the delays. Happy New Year! Best, J.L.
Bug#339322: Any progress on packaging for 1.38?
Can we contribute? I'm waiting for a new version since September. thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
