[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bacula-devel] [Fwd: Re: bacula : about the bacula.spec formrpms]

David Boyes wrote:
>> There are standards such as FHS, and these are good and useful for
> most
>> programs, but they really do a big disservice to Bacula users when we
> are
>> dealing with recovery.  If you spread the Bacula installation all
> around
>> your
>> computer filesystem as most packages do and as the standards specify,
> and
>> your system is a server and the server goes down (loses the harddisk),
> you
>> will find it next to impossible to restore that server -- very few
> people
>> think about this.  What I am saying here applies to a Bacula server
>> (Director, SD) and not clients.
> Adherence to the filesystem standards is important in that many
> enterprises require their use where such standards exist, and the key
> point here is to preserve the various configuration files and
> information, not the location of the binaries. I don't really care where

Just to expand on this point a bit - as security enhancements such as SELinux 
become more commonplace, it's very realistic to expect that files that are not 
in directories indicated by security policy as holding executables simply 
can't be run as programs.  If Bacula throws binary executables in places 
outside of FHS, it runs a risk of being shot down by those security policies.

Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu  |  For every problem, there is a solution that
WPI Senior Network Engineer   |  is simple, elegant, and wrong. - HL Mencken
     GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4  E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC

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.