Kern Sibbald wrote: > Hello José Luis, > >> I do have been too busy, unfortunately. >> Personal problems before and finishing my Master Thesis later (i'm just >> finished with this -- last friday was the day). >> > > Well sorry to hear about your problems, but congratulations on having > finished > your Master's Thesis. That is an especially impressive thing considering (if > I am not mistaken) that you are also working ! > well... you're right :-$ All is basically done, however. So let's continue on to the fun stuff. >> The fact that bacula 1.38 made it impossible to link the sd tools >> statically didn't make it easier. >> The fact that the documentation has been splitted apart didn't help either. >> > > Yes, 1.38 was quite a big change in packaging to previous versions. > > I'm not sure why you say that the SD tools don't statically link. I have no > problem here. Perhaps you are trying to link them with too many options such > as with openssl enabled but do not have the static libraries loaded. When I > want a static version, I vastly simplify the ./configure options (no > tcpwrappers, no comm encryption, ...). > Ok.. i'll try that sometime. For the time being, i will be supplying 3 "flavors" of bacula-sd and that's it. > [snip] >> No prob. Even though keeping the debian packaging stuff within an >> upstream package is normally regarded as a "not so good" idea. >> My packages' source code is freely available, anyway. >> > > Unless your packages source code is in some official Open Source repository > (e.g. Debian), I would much prefer adding it to the Bacula source. This > guarantees continuity for the whole community. Please let me know on this > point. I don't consider it urgent, but I would like to work on it ... > As you wish. It is indeed available from the Official Debian Archive.
deb-src ftp://ftp.<country>.debian.org/debian <branch> main apt-get update && apt-get source bacula In form of a "pristine" upstream tarball (your released tarball) plus my changes (in `diff -u` form) >>> - For each port (ideally, over time), I would like to have a small >>> chapter in the manual much like the RPM FAQ chapter that explains how to >>> build the binaries from the platform code, and any other particularities >>> of the port. Given feedback from a knowledgeable person, this is >>> something I can help with a lot. >>> >> Ok. We can do that, definitively. >> > > OK. That is more of a long term project, but I think it will benefit > everyone > and also give you a chance to directly address the Bacula users in the > manual. > :-D > >> Well, i should be up to speed almost inmediately (hopefully) >> I arrived home late yesterday night, and am beginning to work right >> now.... let's see what happens. >> > > OK, thanks for the feedback. It would be nice if you could work on it a bit > in > the near future. However, before releasing anything, you might want to wait > just a few days, because I am going to release a 1.38.7 (I previously > suggested 1.38.6.1), which has *very* minimal changes to the source, none of > which should change the Debian release, but it would be nicer to release > 1.38.7 rather than 1.38.6 and have me release 1.38.7 a day or two later :-) > Alpha/beta releases now withstanding, i'll do that. I'm going out for a short vacation 8-16th April, but will try to stay connected. Cheers, J.L. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
