On Monday 2016-11-28 18:43:14 Kern Sibbald wrote: > Hello Josip, > > Well for end users such as myself, I do consider having Bacula all over > your system a problem. First, if I want to bring up a new version, I > simply do: > > cp -a /opt/bacula /opt/old-bacula > save the database > > then install a new version. If something goes wrong, it is easy to > roll back to the previous version. In addition, when saving the > database dump every evening, I have Bacula backup the database dump > plus everything in /opt/bacula with the exclusion of a few directories > such as /opt/bacula/working, ... > > In case of an emergency, it is then easy to get back the database and > all of Bacula including the conf files very easily. The same can be > done when the Bacula files are sprayed all over your system, bit > generally, you either need to do a big backup or you need to know > exactly what files to backup and where they are. It is easy to forget > one, especially if you upgrade and we release a new file or you decide > to modify mtx-changer or something ... > > That said, you are free to do it your way :-)
Kern, you hardly qualify as bacula end user. :-) Packaging vs single directory - it's a matter of perspective. You are developer and it's quite understandable that you feel more safe to have it all in one place and use a simple maintenance procedure you have described. However for a good system administrator/architect/whatever packaging system offers additional benefits and a sysadmin will not feel the files are scattered around because they are all accounted for by the means of packaging system. Some of the benefits of packaging (at least for decent packaging systems): - easy listing of packages and checking whether it's installed or not - easy checking of package version - easy checking of package files - possibility of using dependencies - immensely easier rebuild procedure (once you are done with an immense effort of creating your package :-) if done properly it should succeed on all the systems of the same version without surprises - integrated file/package verification (useful if there is a suspicion of operating system security breach or a file system corruption - easier upgrades/updates of a system/package (could prevent ending up with a broken service by employing dependency checks) - ability to check which configuration files have been modified in a package or on a whole system - easier documentation of a system as well as its manual replication - ability to check the description of a package or its changelog I probably missed few but it should be enough to show why sysadmins prefer packages. Packaging system makes administration of the system easier or even possible on the long run. As all good sysadmins cherish the order on the system they would probably see files "unaccounted" by the packaging system as a constant source of discomfort knowing that *there is something out there* that is not going to be easily checked for updates, listed, migrated, verified or removed by the package manager. :-) In case of emergency a good sysadmin is expected to manage its package manager and packaged files good enough to use it any way imaginable in order to solve the problem at hand. -- Josip Deanovic ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
