> Scott is, unfortunately on a rather long assignment away from home, so > for the moment, there won't be any binary rpms. However, I have > release a source rpm for version 1.38.2 (and will do so for any new > release). Using this, you can rather easily build your own rpms > on any system. For instructions on how to build the rpms from > the source rpm, please see the documentation in the manual: > > http://www.bacula.org/dev-manual/Bacula_ensu_RPM_Packaging.html > Ok, I need to try this. Doesn't look too bad, though I've alvays been a little bit scary about building rpms.
I remember a long time ago (maybe around the release of FC4) there was a discussion about Bacula's compatibility with some new technique used in FC4 and that especially would be included in FC5. So, is there some spesific reason why the most recent Fedora rpms still are called fc3, though FC3 will be moved to Fedora Legacy project (in other words, getting obsolete) in the near future, and FC4 has been out since June? Of course, name of the package isn't the big thing, but is it safe to expect at least Bacula source code to be compatible with eg. FC5 (that will be out in February)? -- TiN ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
