Am 14.03.2012 10:20, schrieb Simone Caronni:
> If you want to use 5.2.6 you need to use the repository at:
>
> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/README.txt
>
> These are backported rawhide packages that I mantain and will be the
> default in next Fedora releases and (I think) RHEL 7+ releases.
>
> Right now the rationale behind the libraries is quite handy and I
> don't see it as a problem or as a "hack".
Sorry if my posting sounded a bit harsh. The word "hack" wasn't meant in
a negative sense, and it's not a problem, just a nuisance.
> mysql-libs, sqlite-libs and
> postgresql-libs packages weight all together less than a single Mbyte
> of packages
On my CentOS 6 machines, "bacula-client" pulled in "mysql" which weighs
a hefty 2.4 MB all by its own. But size is not my point.
> and there's no harm in having them installed and they
> don't pull in any daemon or program.
Granted. But it is annoying. The bacula-client package used to be simple
and standalone. With the update to 5.2, all of a sudden it pulls in four
other packages. Of course my co-worker whom I tasked with the update
couldn't decide what side-effects these new packages might have and
whether installing them on a production server is ok, so the activity is
blocked until I clear them. I have to check whether the "mysql" package
of CentOS 6 does or doesn't contain the server component, and whether
the other packages introduce any conflicting or unwanted components. I
would gladly do that if there was a good reason for it, but I cannot see
one.
> Right now the only thing you need to switch backend is to perform the
> following:
[...]
> In Fedora 15 and 16, where the Bacula version is 5.0.3 and do not
> include the recent development about the shared catalogue library, the
> situation is worse, [...]
Forgive me but I get the impression that you didn't get my point. This
thread is about the Bacula client aka File Daemon. The Bacula File
Daemon is just a standalone network daemon for machines that should be
backed up by Bacula. It never accesses the Bacula database, so it does
not need any database backend.
I am quite happy with the server components (Director and Storage
Daemon) pulling in alternative database libraries in addition to the one
I actually use. As you elaborated, there are good reasons for that:
simplified packaging and simplified switching of database backends.
What's more, these are typically installed on a dedicated backup server,
so there's little danger of a conflict.
But for the client component (File Daemon) the situation is different.
That one is installed on many machines, and those machines typically
have some other primary purpose than running Bacula. So the Bacula
client should disturb them as little as possible. And again, if I say
"disturb" I do not refer to an additional megabyte or three of disk
space occupied.
> Since I have some influence on where this will go regarding Fedora et
> al, I'm happy to receive constructive suggestions on how to change
> things to make them more appetible for everybody.
My suggestion is this: remove the dependency of the bacula-client
package on the database backend. It's not needed. The File Daemon does
not access any database.
Thanks,
Tilman
--
Tilman Schmidt
Phoenix Software GmbH
Bonn, Germany
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
