Re: [Bacula-users] Re: Bacula update

[Kern S. <ke...@si...>]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:58, AltGrendel wrote:
> Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> >>So, in conclusion <grin> I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as
> >>nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all
> >>means, take the choice which requires the least amount of
> >>effort on your part and still makes some sense as
> >>far as version numbers are concerned.
> >>
> >>And, thanks for all that you do. Bacula is great!
> >
> >I vote for this option. Minimum-effort working solution.
> >
> >If there were any chances to get binary rpms, that would be veeery nice!
>
> Seconded on the Minimum-effort path.
>

Thanks to everyone for the responses.  I'm not sure I took the minimum effort 
path, but it is the one of least worry ...

-- 
Best regards,

Kern

  (">
  /\
  V_V