On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:37:16PM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM, stan <stanb AT panix DOT com> 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.