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

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

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.

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.