On Sunday 29 March 2009 19:55:38 Ulrich Leodolter wrote: > 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.
Yes, that is a reasonable way of doing things ... Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
