On 2013-01-15 17:02, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Adrian Reyer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0500, Bryan Harris wrote:
>>>> Bacula community edition will continue, unix, linux, windows 
>>>> products?
>>> I think he means "Will Windows be supported?", or "Will Windows 
>>> continue?", or something along those lines.  Here is my 
>>> understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:
>>
>> As I understand the mentioned page, there won't be precompiled 
>> Windows
>> Community Binaries anymore. However, windows as a client will still 
>> be
>> supported, but you have to compile it yourself.
>> As windows users/administrators are not as used to compiling things 
>> as
>> linux/unix users are, there is an offer of Bacula Systems on 
>> precompiled
>> Enterprise versions. Alternatively someone else could just step up 
>> and
>> offer the precompiled windows binaries.
>>
>> If I misgot this and future windows fd-development ceased to exist, 
>> the
>> code about to be removed, I'd see it as a serious problem as it 
>> damages
>> the credibility of bacula as an available system.
>
> Umm, where did you get that idea from?  Wild speculation, without
> foundation from what I understand.
>
> There has been no mention of removing support for Windows clients.
>
>> Bacula Systems is
>> not a solution to this as it is not free software and if tomorrow
>> Bacula Systems decides to only support e.g. Android as the single
>> plattform, there is no source to continue with. Don't misunderstand 
>> me
>> there, I really like Bacula Systems providing the Enterprise windows
>> binaries. I'd prefer them to provide the community binaries, though,
>
> The community is free to provide community binaries.  it is clear 
> that nobody
> in the community is willing to do that work.

The documentation on how to build the binaries is really outdated.
The minimum requirements of Qt etc are not more up-to-date.

The build system is also a bit annoying.
The gcc/mingw version that it uses is so old, that it gives issues on 
some newer systems.

I've been able to build a 64bit windows exe/dll on a Ubuntu 12.10 
system with the mingw64 from packages in Ubuntu.
Also used OpenSSL 1.0 instead of the older versions given in the build 
docs for win32.
I had to change some small things in the code & the build system to get 
everything building.
The symbols file also contains issues (missing exports).

Maby I should file a bug for this? So the build system can be improved 
a bit on Windows?
Then its really not a big issue to build Bacula exe's.

I did not build bat yet, only the bacula-fd exe's itself (which is 
enough for most of the users).

>
>> and
>> while they are at it, perhaps 'certified' community binaries for the
>> major linux distributions.
>
> I think the project has no business supplying binaries.  I believe
> that is the responsibility  of each
> project (e.g. FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc).
>
> The Bacula community project needs more volunteers.  if someone wants
> something badly enough,
> then they'll step up and do the work.  Otherwise, it won't get done.
> That's the nature of a volunteer project.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master SQL Server Development, Administration, T-SQL, SSAS, SSIS, SSRS
and more. Get SQL Server skills now (including 2012) with LearnDevNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only - learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122512
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users