On 21 Aug 2007 at 1:26, Peter Buschman wrote: > I will not go so far as to say that Bacula needs support for > additional databases but that, given the availability of coders and > testers, it can easily be ported to most RDBMS's on the planet. > Support for more databases is ultimately a positive thing but it does > incur additional development and testing effort.
I speak as the author of the PostgreSQL module/plug-in. PostgreSQL was added because I wanted to use PostgreSQL. No other reason. I didn't do it because someone asked me to. I didn't do it because I read that it might be a good idea. I did it because I wanted to use PostgreSQL with Bacula. Coding additional database support is not complicated. Yes, until such time as someone else wants ODBC/some other database, and is willing to code it, or pay someone to code it, it will not get done. I suggest that more discussion will not get you any closer to your goal. -- Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/ Available for hire: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
