On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Craig Barratt <cbarr...@users.sourceforge.net> 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 lesmikes...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 BackupPC-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-devel Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/