Zitat von Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com>:

> Hello,
> ...
> My time:
> Due to my heavy workload in ensuring certain administrative aspects of
> Bacula
> Systems as well as working on major Bacula Systems programming projects,
> I am attempting to optimize my use of time.  One way I plan to reduce my
> workload
> is to stop doing the updates necessary to maintain the Windows platform as
> well as the Windows builds.  As a result, there are no Windows binaries
> for Bacula
> version 5.2.12 -- this isn't a very big problem since there were very
> few changes
> to the FD, if any, so everyone can continue using the 5.2.10 Windows
> binaries.
> However in the long run (9 months to a year) when significant changes
> are made
> to the Windows code or the libraries that they use, this will become a
> problem, so
> it would be nice to find an alternative.  There are three alternatives
> that I can see:
>
> 1. You build them yourself, as you do with the Linux binaries (unless
> you use distro
> binaries, which can be quite old and out of date).
>
> 2. Some community user learns how to build them and makes them available.
>
> 3. Bacula Systems supplies them.
>
> Comments about the above:
> 1.  Build your own is not too practical, because you need to be a C++
> programmer
> and have a number of mingw tools built and loaded.  The process is well
> documented,
> but not very easy to setup.
>
> 2. Having a C++ knowledgeable community member build them is a bit more
> practical, but it is often hard to find volunteers and as is just a fact
> of open
> source life, the volunteer's life, time, or priority changes and they
> don't often
> continue long term.
>
> 3. Having Bacula Systems build them would work nicely since it is a long
> term
> solution.  The only consideration is that Bacula Systems will want some
> very nominal financial compensation for doing so.
>
> You might also want to think about another idea, which is: perhaps Bacula
> Systems would be willing to provide binaries for a number of different
> platforms
> such as RedHat/CentOS where Bacula versions tend to lag seriously behind the
> development code.
>
> I would appreciate your opinions on these, and if you wish to express
> them "publicly" please
> send them to the bacula-devel list (and bacula-users list).  If you wish
> to express
> them privately, simply address an email just to me.  Please don't
> hesitate to indicate
> what sort of price you might be willing to pay for one or both of these
> services.

Hello

sorry for being late on this but here it goes:

Until now we are only in the test-phase but it is impressive what  
features/stability Bacula provides. I agree with you that it is a  
problem that many Linux distributions provide age-old versions (Ubuntu  
8.04 still in service come with Bacula 2.4.2) and it would be nice too  
have some reliable build service for binaries. From my point of view  
it would be no problem even for small companies to spent a yearly fee  
on this. Let the users do the build itself will not work because in  
case you most need the binaries (restore), no one like to get a build  
environment running first. That said if there is a need for community  
build service we might help out with machine power and build  
environments.

Regards

Andreas




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users