Jon Craig wrote:
>
>> Wrong. It still is /etc/BackupPC for the tarball version. The Debian and
>> Ubuntu packages use /etc/backuppc. I think this is a good idea, because it
>> discourages mixing up package and tarball :-).
>
> Not sure I agree with this or at least with the manner of implementation.
My 2cents worth: I think all of the packaging attempts err in putting
any of it in the 'standard' places. In my opinion, backuppc should be
self-contained in its own filesystem to whatever extent possible -
something like /opt/backuppc. Even with a tarball install you don't
quite get this because of the needed non-standard perl modules and the
setup for the web server. The reason I think you want this is that the
archive should be on its own filesystem for obvious reasons, and you may
want to take that filesystem or a mirrored copy of it off site and be
able to restore from another machine. In this scenario it is handy -
perhaps even essential - to have all of the current updates and
configuration changes automatically brought along with the data.
I realize this concept conflicts with normal packaging guidelines to
install everything in standard places, but the reason you are keeping
backups is that everything normal may go wrong.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
