[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bacula-devel] [Fwd: Re: bacula : about the bacula.spec formrpms]
On Monday 03 March 2008 22.59:45 Scott Barninger wrote:
> OK, so what would you all like "me" to do? Yes there are standards for
> things like /usr/local/... but that would I think introduce some path
> problems? Personally I think the official rpms should be FHS compliant
> for reasons that David Boyes articulated. He is quite correct about
> large enterprise IT departments. I could have you buy me beers for an
> entire evening and regale you with stupid IT stories from US Airways.
> Rigidity doesn't even come close to describing it. Anyone who wishes to
> do differently can either modify my spec file or build from source.
I think that at least for the moment you should stick as closely to the FHS as
you can for exactly the reasons you cite -- I'll be happy to buy you beers
for an evening and listening to stupid IT stories; it is the least I can do
for all the work you have done :-)
My email was more a rant than a request to change things ...
However, at some point, I think it would be good to either have a separate
spec file or an option that puts Bacula into a FHS compliant directory. If
we had rpms like that I would use them myself (of course, I am now switching
most everything except my server to Kubuntu).
If you haven't tried virtual machines, you might try VirtualBox. It is really
trivial to install (at least on Debian systems) and works pretty well. Once
I get home in mid-March, I am going to bring it up on several boxes so that I
can test multiple distros ...
> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 22:13 +0100, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Everyone is perfectly free to put files where they want and regardless of
> > what I recommend, they are going to continue to be installed on Linux as
> > is the current habit.
> > I was just reminding users that installing Bacula they way most Linux
> > programs are packaged is not ideal when it comes to recovering a server.
> > You can take or leave my advice, but many sys admins do it my way.
> > Most Unix systems tend to put programs into their own directory (there
> > *are* standards for the directory locations) rather than spreading the
> > parts all over your filesystem. The extreme of spraying files all over
> > the place is Windows, Linux is somewhere in the middle, and Unix for
> > add-on packages is much better (IMO).
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Bacula-devel mailing list
This mailing list archive is a service of Copilotco.