On Thursday 08 December 2005 21:26, Timo Neuvonen wrote: > > So, in conclusion <grin> I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as > > nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all > > means, take the choice which requires the least amount of > > effort on your part and still makes some sense as > > far as version numbers are concerned. > > > > And, thanks for all that you do. Bacula is great! > > I vote for this option. Minimum-effort working solution. > > If there were any chances to get binary rpms, that would be veeery nice!
Scott is, unfortunately on a rather long assignment away from home, so for the moment, there won't be any binary rpms. However, I have release a source rpm for version 1.38.2 (and will do so for any new release). Using this, you can rather easily build your own rpms on any system. For instructions on how to build the rpms from the source rpm, please see the documentation in the manual: http://www.bacula.org/dev-manual/Bacula_ensu_RPM_Packaging.html -- Best regards, Kern ("> /\ V_V ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
