On 04/25/2014 01:46 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:47:49 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>> On 04/22/2014 03:30 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:13 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>>>> In general yes, it is much more stable, because it is build by
>>>> Bacula Systems (usually me) with the correct libraries and delivered
>>>> to paying customers. With other versions you get they may or may
>>>> not be built with the correct libraries (especially the correct Qt
>>>> libraries). Yes, it has a few more features because it is a later
>>>> version. I do not have an exact list of new features though.
>>>> ...
>>>> At the moment, we are not planning a new community version because
>>>> it is too much work for me to maintain two different versions, build
>>>> them and test them.
>>> At the risk of sounding rude, why can't you publish a working build script
>>> that checks for the required libraries, so users can build the source
>>> reliably?
>> During the standard make process the source code does check for the
>> correct libraries, but often packagers patch the source to turn off the
>> check or they change the required version to what is on their build machine.
Hello Martin,
> Yes, I understand that packagers might release some junk, but that's no reason
> to prevent users from building their own if they follow the recommendations.
>
> I keep hearing talk of "old community code" which makes it sound like the
> Win32 support has become proprietary.
So that it is clear (emails usually sound more angry or aggressive than
the writer intends), I am not in any way offended or upset by your question.
The way you phrase it makes it difficult to respond. I am not sure that
one can say that Win32 support has become proprietary, what in effect
has happened is that I don't personally have the time to work on Win32
at this moment (perhaps later) for the community. So, baring some
community member that wants to pickup the Win32 code, enhance (not so
easy) and build it, there is no community support for Win32 except what
existed previous, and what is supplied by Bacula Systems, who must pay
its employees. The changes that Bacula Systems is putting into Win32
cost Bacula Systems money (the total for all the code they have written
is well over CHF 1 million), and those changes are over time (max 5
years) contributed back to the community.
I hope that in the near future (6 months to 1 year) that Bacula Systems
will have sufficient employees that they (not me personally) can
maintain and build free community Windows binaries, but this is not yet
possible. We are even struggling to produce and release community
binaries for the most popular distributions, but I think that will be
possible (I had hoped by the end of April) by the end of May. The only
obstacles at the moment are a distribution system for the bacula.org web
site and making sure that the necessary build scripts (heretofore Bacula
Systems developed) can be released with the source code, which is
required by the AGPLv3 license. It was previously not an issue because
the project has for a long time not had any packagers since Scott
Barninger left (I thank Scott for all he did and fully understand him
moving on).
Hopefully the above explains what I am trying to do, and helps people
understand that without volunteers (I seem to be the only one) it costs
a lot of money to do anything, particularly if one is based in Switzerland.
Best regards,
Kern
>
> __Martin
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
