>> Indeed, I'm using CentOS 5.5 amd64. I was not doing the installation >> with RPM packages, but compile the source code obtained at the official >> site of Bacula. On sunday, doing tests comparing with the installation >> done with packages RPM, I realized that the difference was in which the >> libraries were in /usr/lib64. >> > >You may consider rebuilding a Fedora Rawhide source RPM which is supposed to >be the latest Bacula source code version, but does include the semantics to >make it all work properly in the end -on most Fedora derivative systems.
I've been following this thread in hopes of uncovering the reason why the op would even compile himself for a platform that has precompiled binaries available (lets forgo the obvious argument for destroying a package managed Cadillac OS in the first place) and I haven't seen it appear? Why the need to endure all this pain in the first place? Even if compile time options needed to be changed, wouldn't it be easier/smarter/faster/lighter/shinier to modify the spec and rebuild? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
