On 05/16/10 19:31, James Harper wrote:
>> *If you don't see the compile warnings*, there is no indication that
> you
>> haven't built a fully working static client ... until you try to use
> it
>> in a bare-metal-restore situation on a minimal rescue CD. On the
> system
>> you built it from, with
> *If you don't see the compile warnings*, there is no indication that
you
> haven't built a fully working static client ... until you try to use
it
> in a bare-metal-restore situation on a minimal rescue CD. On the
system
> you built it from, with the build glibc available, it will work
perfectly
On Sunday 16 May 2010 23:00:29 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 05/16/10 16:45, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > After building it, you must always do an "ldd bacula-fd" to be sure it
> > built correctly.
>
> Sure, and ldd will say it's not a dynamic-linked executable. It won't
> warn you that it still needs th
On 05/16/10 16:45, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> After building it, you must always do an "ldd bacula-fd" to be sure it built
> correctly.
Sure, and ldd will say it's not a dynamic-linked executable. It won't
warn you that it still needs the correct-version runtime libs available.
> It is possible to b
On Sunday 16 May 2010 22:26:13 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 05/16/10 16:04, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 May 2010 19:25:04 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> >> Yes, it would definitely be a non-trivial project (and one requiring
> >> much more knowledge of autoconf than I have). I was quite taken ba
On 05/16/10 16:04, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Sunday 16 May 2010 19:25:04 Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> Yes, it would definitely be a non-trivial project (and one requiring
>> much more knowledge of autoconf than I have). I was quite taken back to
>> discover how much of the configuration currently does
On Sunday 16 May 2010 19:25:04 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 05/16/10 09:22, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:41:10 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> >> After having messed around a bit with various configuration options in
> >> 5.x to see what produces what results, I wish to propose that t
On 05/16/10 09:22, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:41:10 Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> After having messed around a bit with various configuration options in
>> 5.x to see what produces what results, I wish to propose that the
>> primary configure options in Bacula need to be revised.
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 10:45:16 Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 4/05/2010 11:45 AM, Morty Abzug wrote:
> > file dedup (rather than block dedup) could mostly be handled at the
> > catalog level with another level of indirection. I.e. instead of a
> > catalog entry containing file metadata and where the fi
On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:41:10 Phil Stracchino wrote:
> After having messed around a bit with various configuration options in
> 5.x to see what produces what results, I wish to propose that the
> primary configure options in Bacula need to be revised.
>
> The Bacula executables can be logically
10 matches
Mail list logo
