> http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1642
> ==
> Reported By:martin
> Assigned To: barninger
> ==
> Project:
Bacula-5.0 RPM Release Notes
06 Sep 2010
D. Scott Barninger
Release 5.0.3-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 3.0.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete
Bacula-5.0 RPM Release Notes
02 May 2010
D. Scott Barninger
Release 5.0.2-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 3.0.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete
Good Afternoon,
Kern has developed a patch to address the problems compiling bacula with
openssl version 1.x. I have successfully applied this patch to the released
5.0.1 code and created rpms for Fedora 12 (server and client packages only).
Unfortunately I'm still unable to build bat on Fedora
.
==
http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1523
==
Reported By:neteler
Assigned To:barninger
==
Project:bacula
Issue
Hello all,
I installed Fedora 12 recently and tried to build for this release. This was
the result:
Compiling guid_to_name.c
crypto.c: In function 'ASN1_OCTET_STRING* openssl_cert_keyid(X509*)':
crypto.c:333: error: invalid conversion from 'const X509V3_EXT_METHOD*'
to 'X509V3_EXT_METHOD*'
cryp
Hello,
Please note there was a bug in the client rpm packages I released the other
day. I've withdrawn them and will repost them shortly to sourceforge.
Scott
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software
Thanks. Fixed in git repo. There was a naming convention change that caused
that. How odd that the published packages did not break and SL did.
On Friday 26 February 2010 09:38:58 am Richard Frewin wrote:
> On Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 18:04, Scott Barninger
(barnin...@fairfieldcomputers.com) wr
On Sunday 07 February 2010 02:13:29 pm Timo Neuvonen wrote:
>
> Output of the above attached. What came into my mind... is the test in line
> 100 in the attachment (similar to the one I highlighted above with ***)
> wrong way:
>
> elif [ "$DB_VER" -lt "11" ]; then
> echo "This release requi
I'm not really worried about maintaining the older builds but I
ocassionally get the odd email from the user who just can't stand to give up
RH-7.3 and this would at least give them something to work from if it really
mattered.
Example from the changelog:
* Sat May 16 2009 D. Scott
Rpm packages released today.
Bacula-3.0 RPM Release Notes
26 July 2009
D. Scott Barninger
Release 3.0.2-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 2.0.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or
I'm not sure why Felix didn't upload them, however I've just become aware that
the packages we did release do not work. There was a structural change in the
source code that has caused a packaging problem which I will have fixed by
the next release. In the meantime you can continue to use bat-2.
Bacula-3.0 RPM Release Notes
02 May 2009
D. Scott Barninger
Release 3.0.1-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 2.0.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete
Bacula-2.4 RPM Release Notes
10 January 2009
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.4.4-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for
Bacula-2.4 RPM Release Notes
11 Octover 2008
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.4.3-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for
OK, so what would you all like "me" to do? Yes there are standards for
things like /usr/local/... but that would I think introduce some path
problems? Personally I think the official rpms should be FHS compliant
for reasons that David Boyes articulated. He is quite correct about
large enterprise IT
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 09:35 -0500, David Boyes wrote:
> > There are standards such as FHS, and these are good and useful for
> most
> > programs, but they really do a big disservice to Bacula users when we
> are
> > dealing with recovery. If you spread the Bacula installation all
> around
> > your
which experienced this problem.
Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
09 February 2008
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.8-2
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete information on all changes
Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
27 January 2008
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.8-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for
Hello,
Please note that I committed a typographical error in the release notes
published previously. When restoring your catalog database I indicated
the command:
/usr/lib/bacula/sqlite3 $* bacula.db < bacula_backup.sql
which should have been:
/usr/lib/bacula/sqlite/sqlite3 $* bacula.db < bacul
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.7-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete information on all
again and send you a log.
>
> Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I see from SF stats that there have been 92 downloads since I re-posted
> > the SRPM last Friday. Can I assume all of the issues noted have been
> > addressed? I ask because later this week
Hello All,
I see from SF stats that there have been 92 downloads since I re-posted
the SRPM last Friday. Can I assume all of the issues noted have been
addressed? I ask because later this week I intend to post a special
2.2.6 to the beta-rpm section for upgrade from sqlite to sqlite3 for
testing.
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 07:35 +0200, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> "Scott Barninger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Sorry for the delay but I have been out of town until this evening. Not
> > sure what went wrong with the
What command string are you using to build?
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 07:35 +0200, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> "Scott Barninger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Sorry for the delay but I have been out of town until this evening.
this will be done with the next major release.
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 17:24 -0500, Jeff Dickens wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay but I have been out of town until this evening. Not
> > sure what went wrong with the r
Hello,
Sorry for the delay but I have been out of town until this evening. Not
sure what went wrong with the release but I have re-uploaded the srpm
now. It should be available now and the file size looks correct.
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 14:10 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Just to
acula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
11 November 2007
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.6-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for com
Hello,
Due to Sourceforge spam policies I have had to change the email address
on my subscription to these lists. I believe this is working.
Regards,
Scott
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping thr
I have released the rpm package for 2.2.4 to sourceforge. One item of
note is that I did not release a bacula-mysql package for rhel3 due to a
problem with the current code and mysql-3.23.x.
Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
15 September 2007
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.4-1
This release
t line 199.
Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
10 September 2007
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.3-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge fo
On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 12:28 +0300, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> > Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes
> > 03 September 2007
>
> > The spec file currently supports building on the following platforms:
>
> > # Whitebox Enterprise build
> > --define "build_wb3 1"
> >
> > # RedHat Enterprise builds
> > --define "
Release Notes
03 September 2007
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.2.1-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete information on all
Hello All,
For those on the lists who do not know me, I am the primary packaging
manager for bacula linux binaries. I am the primary commit person on the
rpm spec file as well as building *many* release files and managing
contributions from other folks for platforms I don't build directly. I
have
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 08:23 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >
> The told me to upload it to the shell area then to ftp it from there. I
> consider that a total waste of time for the docs, but I'll let you decide if
> you want to use it for the srpms.
>
> I've given you access to the shell area,
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:56 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:42, Scott Barninger wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:32 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:28, Scott Barninger wrote:
> > >
> > > > But the entire d
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:56 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:42, Scott Barninger wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:32 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:28, Scott Barninger wrote:
> > >
> > > > But the entire d
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:32 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2007 at 12:28, Scott Barninger wrote:
>
> > But the entire doc source tarball is still a source in the packages. So
> > I'm thinking about changing that and making only the pdf manuals (user
> > and
Good Afternoon,
As I sat here earlier watching the 39 MB SRPM (30 MB of which is the
docs tarball) for 2.1.18 crawl it's way up to sourceforge I began to
wonder if it is not time for a change. The documentation package has
grown substantially since the change to latex and I'm only packaging the
pd
I'm at a loss on that one. His command as shown, if that is truly what
he typed, should work. It is the minimum necessary, no python support,
no wxconsole, but should build. Perhaps a misplaced quote mark in
reality vs what is shown in the email? It seems to think a define string
is a file name.
H
Hello,
Thanks for the suggestion. Michael K. Johnson and I had this discussion
some years ago. His position, with which I agreed, was that it was bad
practice to prompt for information in rpm post-install scripts because
rpm was designed to run unattended. That is to say, tools like yum and
apt4rp
PS. No, the rpm packages can only do a single database version upgrade.
If an older version is detected it will abort and instruct the user to
upgrade the database with the scripts in the updatedb package.
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 13:57 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Is this problem r
No, he has installed the SuSE distro package which I have set to
conflict with our official project packages for various previously
discussed reasons. He should uninstall that and then install our
packages.
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 13:57 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Is this problem
d mac book 13 '' with
> 1gb ram.
>
> regards,
> darek
>
> 2007/1/27, Scott Barninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hello Darek,
> >
> > Thanks for writing. We are always interested in expanding the platform
> > support for bacula. Please
Hello,
First I would refer you to the excellent online manual at
http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/index.html as well as the bacula-users
list copied here.
As to the exact rpm packages needed for a server installation, you would
want the basic server package for your choice of database backend, on
My rpms are out, Felix and Patti should follow soon.
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:09 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just uploaded the source tar files and Win32 binaries for Bacula
> version 2.0.2 to the Bacula release area of Source Forge. Most of the rpms
> will be following this
Hello,
I would like a bit of feedback. There are still a few apparent users of
RedHat 9 based upon sourceforge download statistics. It would seem to me
that the time has come to discontinue those packages (no panic, I am
building 2.0.2 right now). Only the basic command line programs will
still bu
http://postfix.wl0.org/en/building-rpms/
>
> I suspect this appraoch would also make the spec file simpler while
> making building them easier for the user at the same time.
>
> hth
> charles
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Scott Barninger wrote:
> >
> > T
Hello Charles,
The bug you reference has been corrected in the cvs copy. And yes, the
spec file is getting rather noisy. Why do I do all of that? We could
simplify the spec substantially by removing all the platform stuff and
just let rpm itself do the dependency requirements to the libs
automatic
FYI all,
I made an error on the new fc6 build tag, so anyone rebuilding should
continue to use fc5. I'll fix it directly for the next release.
Forwarded Message
From: Felix Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott Barninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Bac
Hello,
Source rpm package released also. Felix, note that you now have a
build_fc6 tag.
On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 17:25 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that you can now find Bacula version 2.0.1 on Source
> Forge. This afternoon, I released the following files:
>
>
.
Bacula-2.0 RPM Release Notes
06 January 2007
D. Scott Barninger
Release 2.0.0-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes since 1.38.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for
Hello,
The source rpm for bacula-2.0.0 has been released to sourceforge.
-
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 & bus
he update - much appreciated.
>
> If you would like additional testing, please do let me know. I'd be
> happy to spend a short while over the weekend. Most of my testing will
> be done under RHEL4/CentOS4.
>
> Thanks
> -dant
>
> Scott Barninger wrote:
> > I hop
out the 2.0 series, as
> > well?
>
> Well, I may be "listed" as the maintainer, but Scott Barninger is the guy who
> does the work.
>
> >
> > I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm sure there are a few people who are
> > plenty eager to find a
1.38 series - should the same be assumed about the 2.0 series, as
> > well?
>
> Well, I may be "listed" as the maintainer, but Scott Barninger is the guy who
> does the work.
>
> >
> > I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm sure there are a few p
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 07:32 +0100, Luca Berra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:48:48PM -0500, Scott Barninger wrote:
> >I certainly meant no offense. My only mission with bacula is
> >contributing to the community. If you feel my Mandriva packages are
> >redundant I
he
> Free version also, if that is the one you have
>
> Steen
>
> Søndag 10 december 2006 19:08 skrev Scott Barninger:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm looking for some assistance from anyone who regularly uses
> > Mandriva-2007. I installed in on a partition
Hello,
I'm looking for some assistance from anyone who regularly uses
Mandriva-2007. I installed in on a partition on my build host last
weekend in order to continue my rpm build support for that platform, but
I must admit I'm less than impressed.
Logging into a gnome session gets me a desktop wi
ion 5.0.24, updating to which fixed the problem. I expect this
thread will serve to document it as well as any.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kern
>
> On Monday 04 December 2006 22:19, Scott Barninger wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 16:53 +0100, piero wrote:
> > > Scott Barninge
On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 16:53 +0100, piero wrote:
> Scott Barninger ha scritto:
> > On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 10:44 +0100, piero wrote:
> >
> >> Scott Barninger ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:07 +0100, piero wrote:
> >&
I wasn't able to open the attachment, somehow came through corrupted.
Here is a link:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/FLA-1.0.en.pdf
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:46 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello, 1 November 2006
>
> This contents of this email is for di
I've posted a source rpm for this for anyone wishing to do some test
builds. Personally I built SuSE only with no issues although I did
commit a change in the spec file from the tarball due to changes in the
sqlite scripts. The docs are still a placeholder at 1.38.11.
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:36 +
Hello,
I posted (I hope) the final changes for rpm building for 1.39 to cvs
this afternoon after finishing testing on Mandriva. Mandriva has always
had some odd quirks but this one threw me for a bit. Seems that
somewhere toward the end of the packaging process they silently convert
all manpages t
Hello all,
I read an article this week about using gnome's zenity utility to
display gui dialogs and input information into shell scripts. I did some
fooling around today and the result has been placed in cvs as
platforms/contrib-rpm/rpm_wizard.sh. This handy little script will query
your build pa
Hello,
For those who have expressed and interest in contributing additional
platform builds for bacula, I placed in cvs today a set of tools and
instructions. They can be found in the directory platforms/contrib-rpm.
Any 64-bit builders out there should note that I did not address that
build switc
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 11:30 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At least one user has reported that he is unable to send email to the list.
> Well, Source Forge recently put up a new version of Mailman, which is much
> more strict in what it lets through, probably in an effort to avoid spam.
Hello All,
For those running SuSE 10.1 I have created a repomd repository which you
can add to your YaST installation sources to get the bacula rpm
packages. After adding the installation source the latest package
releases will be available for installation via YaST.
Details can be found at http:
Hello,
Rpm packages for the 1.38.11 release for FC5 have been provided by Felix
and posted to sourceforge. Thanks Felix.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly wit
I've just released a modified spec file to bacula-beta to add python
support.
This release carries an updated spec file for the 1.38.11-3 srpm
released to add python support. Currently there is not a lot of useful
python functionality in 1.38 but it is expected to be present when 1.40
is released.
Hello All,
Rpm packages have been released to sf including today's doc changes.
Bacula-1.38 RPM Release Notes
01 July 2006
D. Scott Barninger
Release 1.38.11-3
Patches included:
bacula-1.38.9-gnome2console.patch
1.38.11-docs.patch
This release incorporates a number of significant ch
Rpm packages for 1.38.10 have been released to sourceforge.
Bacula-gui-13.8 Release Notes
12 June 2006
D. Scott Barninger
This release includes bacula-gui-bimagemgr only. There is no change to
bacula-gui-web since 1.38.9.
Configuration information has been separated out of bimagemgr.pl into a
Bacula-1.38 RPM Release Notes
06 May 2006
D. Scott Barninger
The Gnome2 console currently will not build on older
versions of Gtk2 (< 2.4) so you will see some missing gconsole
packages. You _should_ be able to keep your gconsole
package at 1.38.8 without problems if you upgrade since
t
Hello All,
I've released bacula-gui-CVS20060514 to sourceforge to hopefully get
some testing on a couple new features in the bimagemgr utility. Anyone
using an SQLite catalog and backing up to volume files is encouraged to
try it out. All the usual beta caveats apply, don't use it in
production, d
I've released bacula-1.38.8-2.src.rpm and an SuSE 10 binary to
sourceforge which adds a bacula-wxconsole package in the rpm-beta
section. Note that you need wxGTK >= 2.6 to build it, currently
available from official sources on SuSE 10.0 and Fedora Core 4 AFAIK.
To build it add the switch --defin
Bacula-1.38 RPM Release Notes
14 Apr 2006
D. Scott Barninger
Release 1.38.8-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball or on sourceforge for complete
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 19:33 -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> AFAIK, cygwin is no longer used. Everything is native Windows now.
>
> "If you want to build the Win32 binaries, you will need a Microsoft
> Visual C++ compiler (or Visual Studio)."
>
> Does that help?
>
See also README.win32 in sr
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 19:33 -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> AFAIK, cygwin is no longer used. Everything is native Windows now.
>
> "If you want to build the Win32 binaries, you will need a Microsoft
> Visual C++ compiler (or Visual Studio)."
>
> Does that help?
>
I am getting ready to start
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 13:10 +0200, Mindaugas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached patch for bacula.spec file to be able to build without
> gconsole (build_gconsole define). Then server/client build requires
> much fewer gnome and other needed RPMs installed.
>
> Questions and notices:
> - I think
Bacula-1.38 RPM Release Notes
21 Jan 2006
D. Scott Barninger
Release 1.38.5-2
This release incorporates a number of significant changes.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball for complete information on all changes
Hello Kern,
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 23:00 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Saturday 05 November 2005 16:55, D. Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Hello Kern,
> >
> > Unable to build on redhat 7. The configure script errors can't find
> > Gnome 2 installation.
>
> I had
Bacula-1.38 RPM Release Notes
05 Nov 2005
D. Scott Barninger
Release 1.38.0-1
This release incorporates a number of significant changes.
These release notes refer to the rpm packaging only.
Please refer to the release notes and changelog in the
tarball for complete information on all changes
ckages to
> > our servers. Can anyone supply client-packages for bacula 1.37.38 ? I
> > need RHEL2.1, RHEL3, RHEL4 and RH9.
>
> You might ask Scott Barninger who is our packager.
>
> >
> > As i said the packages compiled without major problems after some
> &g
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 16:34 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 16:25, Alexander Bergolth wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > The current bacula-sqlite RPM has a conflicts-tag for sqlite:
> >
> > $ rpm -q --conflicts -p bacula-sqlite-1.36.3-1.fc3.i386.rpm
> > bacula-client
> > sqlite
> > sqlite-
GNU Ghostscript 7.05: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
> make: *** [dvipdf] Error 1
> Fehler: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.93566 (%build)
>
>
> RPM build errors:
> user sbarn does not exist - using root
> user sbarn does not exist - using root
> user sb
Hello,
The problem seems to me that you modified your release file to
masquerade as RHEL, so the attempt to extract a Whitebox distribution
release fails. Try:
--define "build_rhel3 1"
You also need to tell it you are x86_64 with:
--define "build_x86_64 1"
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 14:37 +0200, Ke
e for
backup to CD
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Waldemar Baldowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Scott Barninger could probably answer your question about
bimagemgr, but he is
>out of town until the weekend and only on the bacula-devel list.
>
>On Tuesday 19 April 2005 15:38, W
Hello,
I have uploaded bacula-1.36.2-4.src.rpm to sourceforge. This contains
explicit build support for RHEL4 (I think) and CentOS 4. Build support
for x86_64 has also been added. Test builds have been done on CentOS but
not RHEL4.
Build with one of these 3 commands:
rpmbuild --rebuild \
Hello,
I have uploaded bacula-1.36.2-3.src.rpm to sourceforge. This contains
explicit build support for RHEL4 (I think). Build support for MySQL4 has
also been updated as SuSE-9.2 has updated to MySQL4. If anyone can build
this on an RHEL4 platform and give me some feedback that would be
appreciat
Hello Jeff,
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 10:03 -0500, Jeff McCune wrote:
> D. Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Attached is the current spec file that was released with 1.36.2. The
> > snip you have below is older. I don't have access to RHEL4 so if you can
>
Jeff McCune wrote:
> D. Scott Barninger wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > To build for RHEL4 and MySQL-4 do:
> >
> > rpmbuild --rebuild \
> > --define "build_rhel3 1" \
> > --define "build_mysql 1" \
> > --define "bui
Hello,
To build for RHEL4 and MySQL-4 do:
rpmbuild --rebuild \
--define "build_rhel3 1" \
--define "build_mysql 1" \
--define "build_mysql4 1" \
bacula-1.36.2-1.src.rpm
Let me know if this works for you.
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 00:22 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On
92 matches
Mail list logo
