On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:37:16PM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM, stan <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a real problem for established (longtime) users of Amanda that have > > many, many machines - many flavors of OS, some very old hardware and > > mission critical production software that can't be replaced. > ... > > It appears as though a lot of useful, and interesting new functionality is > > being added to Amanda, and I will regret not being able to take advantage > > of this, but our job is to keep the control systems operating, everything > > else must come second to that. > > I certainly do not want to be responsible for boilers running dry -- > that sounds dangerous! > > As you indicate in your final paragraph, this was a decision we made > some time ago, after much deliberation. I'm keen on the idea of > "freezing" and stripping down a perl-free, Glib-free version of the > Amanda client for cases such as yours. Certainly, nothing we're doing > precludes this option -- client/server backward compatibility is > paramount -- but we don't have the resources to create and maintain > such a mini-client. > Yes, I think keeping the client build requirments as simple as possible is a very good idea. If I still had the resources I once did (sigh) I would probably do that as in "in house" project, and put the changes back into the mainstram code. But we don't have those resources anymore.
Thanks for your help. -- One of the main causes of the fall of the roman empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.
