In the message dated: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:15:43 +0200, The pithy ruminations from Felix Schwarz on <Re: [Bacula-users] Fedora/CentOS RPMs for 2.2.4 published> were: => Mark, => => Mark Nienberg wrote: => > Sourceforge shows that your version 2.0.3 for fedora 5 had: => > => > 312 downloads for the client, => > 221 downloads for mysql, => > 130 downloads for postgre, and => > 140 downloads for sqlite => > for a total of 803 (combining i386 and x86_64). => => But these RPMs were built in April 2007. FC5 was officially supported until the => end of June. I think (hope) that most users did upgrade when noticing the EOL. => Anyway, I would like to see more FC5 users to speak up before spending the time => to build rpms for an out-dated Fedora version.
I'm running FC5 on a server that I don't intend to update soon. Similarly, I'm running everything from FC1 to CentOS5 to Irix 6.5.22. Most of these machines will not get updated, largely because there is no pressing need to do so, and because the upgrade would cause considerable disruption. => => > I don't think it is at all unusual to have a dedicated backup server on a => > protected network running an EOL version of fedora. I agree completely. => => While I think that this situation is not unusual, I really have mixed feelings => when thinking about this: The backup server gets ALL your important data and can => access everything (unless you use client encryption). This would be a nice => target for an attacker. Therefore I really recommend using secure operating => systems. In my experience it is quite easy migrating a host which does only => backups to CentOS! It might be technically easy to do that migration, but there are often other, non-technical, considerations that take precedence. My suggestion, which seems to be the current situtation already, would for the bacula developers (thanks, Kern) and packagers to continue their successful effort of making sure that bacula compiles on older systems, but that there's little need to provide RPMs for very old systems. FYI, I still wouldn't consider FC5 to be "very old" in this context, though I wouldn't bother providing binaries for FC4 and older. Thanks, Mark => => fs ---- Mark Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Administrator Section of Biomedical Image Analysis 215-662-7310 Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?search=mark.bergman%40.uphs.upenn.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
