On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Craig Barratt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> BackupPC 4.0 is backward compatible with 3.x backup storage - they can be
> viewed/restored etc. I just pushed an optional migration tool,
> BackupPC_migrateV3toV4, that replaces the hardlinked 3.x storage in each
> backup with 4.x-style attrib files and reference counting. So you can use
> that to get rid of all the 3.x hardlinks if you want, but it's not
> necessary.
>
> That said, the 4.0 client configuration has changed for rsync hosts due to
> the use of rsync_bpc, so a package upgrade from 3.x to 4.x will potentially
> require some admin effort to update the client configs. So I agree it won't
> be a completely seamless upgrade.
>
> What do other people recommend in terms of having a new package name for
> BackupPC 4.x?
>
My opinion is that nothing should ever break in a 'yum update' from
CentOS/EPEL repositories if it can possibly be avoided. And even
with v4 in release status there may be reasons to install v3 or
rebuild a machine without changing anything. Using different package
names will let them co-exist for at least as long as v3 will be
maintained and let the sysadmin decide when to switch. I might think
differently if the upgrade could be completely transparent, though.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-devel mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
