Hi Andreas,
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:20:43 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Vögele) wrote:
> Joerg Zinke writes:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:30:26 +0100
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Vögele) wrote:
> >
> > Just disabling the checks as suggested in 3. would work and would
> > keep the port simple...
>
> I don't know whether it's better to provide a package that pulls in
> all the packages that BackupPC may use (which includes Samba) or if
> it's better to provide a minimal package that leaves it to the user to
> install additional packages.
There are examples in ports-tree for minimal ports with nearly no
of possible dependency and there are ports with a lot of dependencies
too.
Since it is "your" port - you can and should decide.
I think as long as no ports-developer suggest something else,
just do it the way you like it, because you will have to maintain it...
> >> There's another issue I'm not happy with.
> >>
> >> I used to keep the files for the second httpd instance in
> >> /var/backuppc/www/{conf,htdocs,logs}. I now decided to put
> >> httpd.conf into /etc/backuppc alongside the BackupPC configuration
> >> files. The httpd log files are kept in /var/log/backuppc
> >> alongside the BackupPC log files. [...]
> >>
> >> But OpenBSD's httpd insists on creating the file logs/etag-state in
> >> the ServerRoot directory that I have set to /etc/backuppc. Since
> >> the path name logs/etag-state cannot be configured I have to
> >> create a symbolic link called /etc/backuppc/logs that points to
> >> /var/log/backuppc. This also means that I have to add an @exec
> >> statement to PLIST. Not nice, but I can't think of a better
> >> solution.
> >
> > Mhmm... what about this: keep webserver root in /var/backuppc/www/
> > and put /etc/backuppc in /var/backuppc/www/etc/ and set a symbolic
> > link (for whole directory or maybe better for every single file in
> > it from /etc/backuppc -> /var/backuppc/www/etc/
>
> The /etc/backuppc directory isn't strictly required by BackupPC. But
> I'd like to keep the config and log files separate from the
> directories cpool, pc, pool and trash, where the backups are stored.
>
[...]
> In practice, I use a cron job to backup the configuration files, but
> nevertheless I think it's a good idea to keep the configuration files
> and the backups separate.
>
Yes, seperation is a good idea!
> > I think it is not a good idea to have the webserver root in etc.
>
> Well, that's what Debian does :-)
>
This is not an argument, because this is OpenBSD not Debian... ;)
> >> The contents of /var/backuppc/conf needs to be moved to /etc/
> >> backuppc.
> >
> > Why not a symbolic link from /etc/backuppc -> /var/backuppc/conf/ as
> > suggested above?
> > Or just ignore the /etc/backuppc idea?
> > For example /etc/bind or /etc/ apache do not exists on openbsd
> > too... it is no problem to have config files under /var/...
>
> There's another reason not to put the config files into /etc. In
> version 3, BackupPC's web frontend can be configured to write to the
> config directory. It's rather strange to have a web frontend write to
> /etc, which after all may be mounted read-only.
>
> What about the following directory structure?
>
> /var/backuppc/ (home directory of the _backuppc user)
> /var/backuppc/.ssh/
> /var/backuppc/conf/
> /var/backuppc/data/cpool/
> /var/backuppc/data/pc/
> /var/backuppc/data/pool/
> /var/backuppc/data/trash/
> /var/backuppc/log/
> /var/backuppc/www/conf/
> /var/backuppc/www/htdocs/ (by default an empty directory)
> /var/backuppc/www/logs/
>
That looks good!
> BTW, do you prefer /var/backuppc or /var/db/backuppc as the base
> directory?
>
I would prefer /var/backuppc because "# man 7 hier" says:
/var/db/ Miscellaneous, automatically generated system-spe-
cific database files.
Backuppc is more then just database files and other ports create own
directories under /var too (for example nessus and net-snmp).
Regards,
Joerg
