Subject: Re: No hosts-configfile in webtool anymore? - msg#00251

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: No hosts-configfile in webtool anymore?

Craig Barratt writes: Sounds like the Debian package for 2.1.1 doesn't have all the usual debian changes (conf in /etc/backuppc etc). BTW, why does Debian patch all these files? Wouldn't it be easier to simply link /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc? Why did they choose a solution that requires more work and is prone to errors? ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: No hosts-configfile in webtool anymore?

Jean-Yves Barbier writes: Hi Andy Andreas Vögele wrote: Craig Barratt writes: Sounds like the Debian package for 2.1.1 doesn't have all the usual debian changes (conf in /etc/backuppc etc). BTW, why does Debian patch all these files? Wouldn't it be easier to simply link /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc? Why did they choose a solution that requires more work and is prone to errors? 1 Because the debian policy is very strict, I'm sorry, but you're wrong! The policy explicitly allows symbolic links. See section 10.7.2: "If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of /etc, and it is not feasible to modify the package to use /etc directly, put the files in /etc and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires." 2 Because you can't leave the programs in /usr/local/bin and move the conf files to /etc/backuppc, the whole thing has to be coherent, I'm talking about a link from /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc, which policy allows (see above). With this link packaging BackupPC becomes very easy. I've created a BackupPC port for OpenBSD. The only changes required are a couple of changes to configure.pl. 3 Because it is the most stable & secure of all the Linux dists (so, we return to point# 1 :) In fact, we do use Debian at work and most of our customers use Debian. But Debian packaging really sucks. Two years ago I took note of all the bugs I had to deal with in a period of two months. Surprisingly, almost 80 percent of these bugs weren't bugs in the upstream sources but bugs in the Debian packages. I noticed two common sources of problems: Firstly, splitting software into several Debian packages very often introduces bugs. Secondly, maintainers change too many things in the upstream sources that are not strictly necessary. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: No hosts-configfile in webtool anymore?

Craig Barratt writes: Sounds like the Debian package for 2.1.1 doesn't have all the usual debian changes (conf in /etc/backuppc etc). BTW, why does Debian patch all these files? Wouldn't it be easier to simply link /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc? Why did they choose a solution that requires more work and is prone to errors? ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: No hosts-configfile in webtool anymore?

Jean-Yves Barbier writes: Hi Andy Andreas Vögele wrote: Craig Barratt writes: Sounds like the Debian package for 2.1.1 doesn't have all the usual debian changes (conf in /etc/backuppc etc). BTW, why does Debian patch all these files? Wouldn't it be easier to simply link /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc? Why did they choose a solution that requires more work and is prone to errors? 1 Because the debian policy is very strict, I'm sorry, but you're wrong! The policy explicitly allows symbolic links. See section 10.7.2: "If your package creates or uses configuration files outside of /etc, and it is not feasible to modify the package to use /etc directly, put the files in /etc and create symbolic links to those files from the location that the package requires." 2 Because you can't leave the programs in /usr/local/bin and move the conf files to /etc/backuppc, the whole thing has to be coherent, I'm talking about a link from /var/lib/backuppc/conf to /etc/backuppc, which policy allows (see above). With this link packaging BackupPC becomes very easy. I've created a BackupPC port for OpenBSD. The only changes required are a couple of changes to configure.pl. 3 Because it is the most stable & secure of all the Linux dists (so, we return to point# 1 :) In fact, we do use Debian at work and most of our customers use Debian. But Debian packaging really sucks. Two years ago I took note of all the bugs I had to deal with in a period of two months. Surprisingly, almost 80 percent of these bugs weren't bugs in the upstream sources but bugs in the Debian packages. I noticed two common sources of problems: Firstly, splitting software into several Debian packages very often introduces bugs. Secondly, maintainers change too many things in the upstream sources that are not strictly necessary. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/