On Tuesday 09 January 2007 14:38, Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/9/2007 1:13 PM, Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
> >>>Mikael,
> >>>as you may read from the 2.0 releaseNotes file:
> >>>- You *should* be able to use 1.38.x FDs with version 2.0.0 Director
> >>> and SD providing you do not use any
Hi,
On 1/9/2007 1:13 PM, Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
>>>Mikael,
>>>as you may read from the 2.0 releaseNotes file:
>>>- You *should* be able to use 1.38.x FDs with version 2.0.0 Director
>>> and SD providing you do not use any of the new features (runscript,
>>> data encryption). It seems to w
> > Mikael,
> > as you may read from the 2.0 releaseNotes file:
> > - You *should* be able to use 1.38.x FDs with version 2.0.0 Director
> > and SD providing you do not use any of the new features (runscript,
> > data encryption). It seems to work here, but we do not guarantee it.
> > - Yo
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 13:14, Jaime Ventura wrote:
> Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to upgrade my installation of bacula but I have many clients.
> >
> > But is a 2.0 bacula director compatible with 1.38 file daemons ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> >
> Mikael,
>
Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to upgrade my installation of bacula but I have many clients.
>
> But is a 2.0 bacula director compatible with 1.38 file daemons ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
Mikael,
as you may read from the 2.0 releaseNotes file:
- You *should* be able to use
