leads to downtime, downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path to
the darkside."
- Unknown Unix Jedi
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Kern Sibbald
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:46 PM
> To: Jan Hauge
&
Thanks for the feedback.
I cannot imagine why there would be any differences between bacula-1.38.4 and
bacula-1.38.6 for Windows 2003. This is one of the big frustrations I have
with Windows.
On Thursday 30 March 2006 21:13, Jan Hauge wrote:
> Hi Kern.
> I just installed bacula-1.38.6 yester
On Thursday 30 March 2006 14:01, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 19:08, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > > This has previously been reported only for AMD64.
> >
> > As well as other 64 architectures when compiled with g
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 19:08, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > This has previously been reported only for AMD64.
>
> As well as other 64 architectures when compiled with g++.
>
>
> > Does it hold for any 64-bit architecture? (Ultra
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 19:08, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:51:30AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Important !!!
> > If you are compiling for a 64 bit machine, you need to ensure
> > that the code is compiled with the -O
