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
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/