-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Phil Stracchino wrote: > Scott Barninger wrote: >> Kern and I have had some offline discussion previously on this subject. The >> current RPM build offers 2 options, one to place files with LSB compliance >> and a second to place files as Kern has advocated and which is how Bacula >> Systems is delivering binaries. >> >> My 2 cents worth is that packages published by the project on sourceforge >> should respect LSB and distribution (linux or BSD) guidelines. The >> advantages >> of this approach are: >> >> 1. we don't get emails from people complaining about file placement >> 2. we don't suffer hesitation from people who are strongly in favor of LSB >> 3. it creates a differentiator for Bacula Systems. >> >> On Sunday 29 March 2009 11:03:32 am Dan Langille wrote: >>> Discussion trimed to devel & beta > > > FWIW, I have *always* used the /opt/bacula layout. It puts the entire > Bacula installation in one place separate from everything else on the > machine, and makes it trivial to (for example) install Bacula on an > otherwise bare disk booted from a CD, then do a full system restore > without overwriting any active files. One could, for instance, boot > from a Knoppix CD and copy /opt/bacula from an NFS share, or mount it > from a USB stick (as we were discussing recently). > > The problem with slavish adherence to things like the LSB is that it > isn't always the best solution for everything. > > "Our corporate policy says we always do this." > "That's fine, but this won't work if you do that." > "But corporate policy says..." > > One size does not fit all. Standards are great, but sometimes you have > to recognize that there are special cases for which the standard is not > the best solution, and that sometimes trying to make them conform to > "the standard" is actively harmful. The trick is to recognize the > occasions upon which applying "the standard" is not appropriate.
When it comes to the official port/package/whatever of a given OS, it must adhere to the standards set by that OS. Hence, I can't see the FreeBSD port doing anything other than what it's doing now. I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. I do see the benefits in providing a solution which contains a completely self-contained installation of Bacula. I'd welcome someone working on that for FreeBSD. FWIW, in case, if I were recovering a failed box on new hardware, my first step would be installing the OS, then Bacula, and going from there. - -- Dan Langille BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference : http://www.bsdcan.org/ PGCon - The PostgreSQL Conference: http://www.pgcon.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknPzEYACgkQCgsXFM/7nTzXSACgtEDvU0WHEPx1xCUbhvHoESZL JwgAoO2DrPkVhBtTXkX+LITdaf37yxGu =fqob -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
