On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 18:44 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Sunday 29 March 2009 19:16:56 Phil Stracchino wrote: > > Scott Barninger wrote: > > > Kern and I have had some offline discussion previously on this subject. > > > The current RPM build offers 2 options, one to place files with LSB > > > compliance and a second to place files as Kern has advocated and which is > > > how Bacula Systems is delivering binaries. > > > > > > My 2 cents worth is that packages published by the project on sourceforge > > > should respect LSB and distribution (linux or BSD) guidelines. The > > > advantages of this approach are: > > > > > > 1. we don't get emails from people complaining about file placement > > > 2. we don't suffer hesitation from people who are strongly in favor of > > > LSB 3. it creates a differentiator for Bacula Systems. > > > > > > On Sunday 29 March 2009 11:03:32 am Dan Langille wrote: > > >> Discussion trimed to devel & beta > > > > FWIW, I have *always* used the /opt/bacula layout. It puts the entire > > Bacula installation in one place separate from everything else on the > > machine, and makes it trivial to (for example) install Bacula on an > > otherwise bare disk booted from a CD, then do a full system restore > > without overwriting any active files. One could, for instance, boot > > from a Knoppix CD and copy /opt/bacula from an NFS share, or mount it > > from a USB stick (as we were discussing recently). > > > > The problem with slavish adherence to things like the LSB is that it > > isn't always the best solution for everything. > > > > "Our corporate policy says we always do this." > > "That's fine, but this won't work if you do that." > > "But corporate policy says..." > > > > One size does not fit all. Standards are great, but sometimes you have > > to recognize that there are special cases for which the standard is not > > the best solution, and that sometimes trying to make them conform to > > "the standard" is actively harmful. The trick is to recognize the > > occasions upon which applying "the standard" is not appropriate. > > Yes, I completely agree with you. If you ever have a disaster (I hope not), > I > think you will be better prepared to cope with it. > > Packages that spray Bacula files all over the system (IMO) do a disservice to > the users. I pointed this out to the Ubuntu gurus, and their response was > that /opt was for optional packages and since Bacula is part of our "system" > that we ship, it is not appropriate to put it there. > > I think it is a mistake (possibly a big one) to spray the files of a system > backup program all over your system, but then I'm not going to dictate to > anyone ... > >
Hello, I think /opt is the right place on the server (director) side, but i prefer system standards (LSB, ...) for client packages. Ulrich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
