Hi all, I've been keeping an eye on Bacula for a number of a years, and I'm now in a position to actually go ahead and deploy it - we've just too many boxen and too complicated a combination of rsync, dump/rdump, tar and scp, smbclient, and I'm really looking forward to a coherent platform for once :-)
My question may have been answered before - what would be the recommended approacjh to installing Bacula on a Debian box? Apt-getting will grab you either 1.36.2, 1.38.11 or 2.0.3, depending on your flavour of Debian (Sarge, Etch, Sid) and there is an option of 2.0.1 from deb packages on Sourceforge. Oh yeah, and source as well ;-) I've installed Etch on my planned box (partly because I expect Etch to be the new stable very soon but mainly because Open-ISCSI has made it in there - yay!) and was just going to go with 1.38.11 for convenience and the assumed stability of a non-unstable package. However, John Goerzen (thanks for packaging btw) said in an earlier posting that he expects the the 2.0.x packages to be of a higher quality than the 1.38.x ones. I've already run some test apt-get's and installing on Etch from unstable doesn't seem to bring any terrifying dependency problems. Are there any bods out there using the unstable packages in a production system? Any advice is gratefully received! Cheers, Kev ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
