On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 07:32 +0100, Luca Berra wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:48:48PM -0500, Scott Barninger wrote: > >I certainly meant no offense. My only mission with bacula is > >contributing to the community. If you feel my Mandriva packages are > >redundant I'll be happy to not spend time on it, I have plenty of other
> I do believe that two sets of mandriva packages are redundant, i don't > really know which one is better. No problem. I will leave the mandriva packaging to you, whether that be the spec file in bacula cvs or another, and concentrate my efforts on other platforms. It's truly becoming more than one person can manage on a part time basis, which is why I put out the call for assistance with the 1.39 branch. I have never used mandriva on a daily basis, only installed it for build purposes, so I suspect you are much better qualified in this respect. Cheers. > > >things to occupy my time. Please accept my apologies if I offended you > >with these mails. Since you sent this to me only I'm only copying Kern. > >Feel free to publish my response to the lists if you wish. > sorry, my response should have gone to the list. > I am not offended, but i was not amused by the tone of your first mail, > which sounded more like distro-bashing than a request for help. > > Let's move on to the technical points. > > >On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 21:32 +0100, Luca Berra wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 07:20:29AM -0500, Scott Barninger wrote: > >> >On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 12:00 +0100, Luca Berra wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:08:57PM -0500, Scott Barninger wrote: > >> >> >Hello, > >> >> > > >> >> >I'm looking for some assistance from anyone who regularly uses > >> >> >Mandriva-2007. I installed in on a partition on my build host last > >> >> >weekend in order to continue my rpm build support for that platform, > >> >> >but > >> >> is there any need for that, since mandriva is shipping with bacula rpms? > >> > > >> >Well, that depends upon what you want I suppose. The distribution > >> >packages, like SuSE packages, are pretty plain vanilla, > >> were did you get this? > > > >Only from looking at the package contents and requires. The only > >linkages I saw were to sqlite. In the case of the official SuSE packages > >they only provide mysql. > > > >> > >> > do not offer a choice in database, > >> this is partially true > >> actually multiple database are not built by default, but rpms can be > >> rebuilt with support for mysql or postgres by passing --with ... flags > >> to rpmbuild > > > >Agreed, but we attempt, from the project standpoint, to cater to the > >large base that does not do rpmbuild, doesn't wish to, but rather looks > >for pre-built choices. bacula can be built many ways. I've had many > we were discussing about providing more db choices in the default rpm, > i was hoping for modular db support from bacula, which IIRC Robert > Nelson told me would come after the switch to cmake, but it is possible > to rebuild the director 3 times and ship it in 3 different rpms. > the only thing i am unsure about is the bscan program, i believe it > should be part of the bacula-sd package, but it is writing directly to > the database. Maybe i should also split it in 3 different packages. > > >emails over the years from folks who just say "could you publish this > >for me, I don't have the expertise, don't want to install devel > >packages" etc. I have tried to produce as many choices as I can and > >currently am recruiting other platform builders to expand those choices > >within an accepted standard structural framework. That is the point of > >the recent publication of a build script with 1.39.x and the > >instructions in platforms/contrib-rpms/, to enhance the platform choices > >but standardize the actual build process across all those platforms. Not > >because I think my choices are in any way better than yours, but just to > >provide a standard basket to choose from. The biggest problem I see with > >the whole rpm process is the variation in sub-packaging choices, package > >names, and all that across various distributions. I invite you to join > >us in this process. > I will have a look at the build script you mention, but i don't know how > to merge those rpm back again since we took many different choices. > > >> > do not run the dbupdate scripts on upgrade, > >> we run dbupgrade scripts that allow to upgrade seamlessly from DB > >> version 4 to latest, and we always did > > > >My mistake. I didn't look closely enough before replying to you. And the > >same for you comment below. My apologies. > > > >> > >> > do not include the rescue files > >> this is true, might package them separately if there is requests tough. > >> > and do not offer the security enhancements we > >> >have included like running as lesser user, setting random passwords on > >> >install etc. > >> are you kidding? i inserted code to replace default passwords from the > >> first rpm i produced for bacula, one or two years before you implemented > >> it in your rpms. > >> and yes, it runs with a lower privilege user even since bacula did > >> support this. > >> > >> Regards, > >> L. > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
