Adam Thornton wrote: > We should probably decide what the cutoff point should be, since it > looks like 1.39 will be a database change from 1.38. > > Now, I myself would really like 1.39 since it implements pool > migration, which is important to my installation. However, I think > 1.38.2 is really the bottom edge of what would be really useful, > since with that level you get VSS support and Mac OS X HFS+ support. > Storage encryption, which is somewhere in between 1.38.2 and 1.39, is > also probably of great interest to the casual user (now if the > backpack containing your DVD-ROM backup is swiped, the thief didn't > get all your personal data!). So the 1.38.3 port underway would be a > VAST improvement over 1.36.2.
1.38.5 is coming... will be finished this weekend, i hope. Meanwhile, monitor my semi-public APT repository: http://devel.adv-solutions.net/debian unstable main > I'm happy to beta-test and to do test builds on both i386 and s390 > machines (and yes, there is a demand, from me and my company at > least, for an s390 package). Wow!! That *really* motivates me... if only i had some more time.. :-D > I would second the sentiment that static linking, while it might be > nice, is much less necessary than simply having a modern Bacula > available on Debian. I don't mind a couple versions with too many > dependencies while we get it figured out, if I get to exploit VSS > support. Agreed. > I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. I'll need a bunch of beta-testing round-the-clock starting from saturday or so. Thanks!!!! Cheers, J.L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
