On 05/16/10 09:22, Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Saturday 15 May 2010 17:41:10 Phil Stracchino wrote: >> After having messed around a bit with various configuration options in >> 5.x to see what produces what results, I wish to propose that the >> primary configure options in Bacula need to be revised. > > Phil, > > This seems like a nice project, but a rather large project since to do it > right, one would need to not only modify a lot of Bacula's Makefiles, one > would need to rewrite a lot of the document and rewrite a lot of the > packaging scripts. In addition, it is relatively complicated, because it > must work with shared libraries, non-shared libraries, and static linking as > well. That is a lot of stuff to change and test.
Yes, it would definitely be a non-trivial project (and one requiring much more knowledge of autoconf than I have). I was quite taken back to discover how much of the configuration currently does not yield the expected results, and more so to discover that I could not build a fully static client on Linux at all. -- Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater It's not the years, it's the mileage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
