Hi Daniel,
I am really sorry for the late reply.
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:29:13 +0100, Daniel Neuberger wrote:
> I really like bacula and the fork was the only opportunity to reactivate
> the community and to keep it a live. We did not just only fork the code
> we also started to redisgn the code and we implement a lot of new
> features. We already published debian packages.
Some comments:
- there are no instructions on how to install such binary packages,
simply a link to the bare metal repositories:
<http://www.bareos.org/en/download.html>
One has to resort itself the necessary lines and commands:
=====
# cat <EOF >/etc/apt/sources.list.d/bareos.org.list
deb http://download.bareos.org/bareos/release/latest/Debian_7.0/ /
EOF
# apt-get update
[get the OpenPGP keyid]
# apt-key adv --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys $BAREOS_KEYID
=====
- the packages are for the 'unstable' distribution, which is IMHO quite
bad: there is no way to distinguish between official (as in
"distributed by Debian mirrors") and unofficial packages.
Moreover, I do not understand why doing so given that you are
targeting stable distributions (squeeze/6.0 and wheezy/7.0).
- I found quite sad that you decided not to follow the current scheme
used for Bacula packages, but instead went for yet another one
(e.g. bacula-console-qt vs bareos-bat), not even providing
transitional packages (e.g. bareos-console-qt Depends: bareos-bat).
> I contact you because there are some persons in the irc who means that
> there is a situation like mysql and mariadb because bacula systems takes
> part of the open source code or patches from the community and put them
> in the closed source version.
Please, this is a mailing list for Debian packaging, not for discussions
about upstream fights. The last Bacula version packaged for Debian is
100% Free Software and released upstream way before the current fight:
=====
$ rmadison bacula
bacula | 5.0.2-2.2+squeeze1 | squeeze-security | source, all
bacula | 5.0.2-2.2+squeeze1 | squeeze | source, all
bacula | 5.2.6+dfsg-8~bpo60+1 | squeeze-backports | source, all
bacula | 5.2.6+dfsg-9 | wheezy | source, all
bacula | 5.2.6+dfsg-9.1 | jessie | source, all
bacula | 5.2.6+dfsg-9.1 | sid | source, all
$ apt-cache policy bacula-common
bacula-common:
Installed: 5.2.6+dfsg-9.1
Candidate: 5.2.6+dfsg-9.1
Version table:
*** 5.2.6+dfsg-9.1 0
500 http://http.debian.net/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
990 http://http.debian.net/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
$ zless /usr/share/doc/bacula-common/changelog.gz | head -n 5
Changelog on version 5.2.6
Version 5.2.6
17Feb12
$
=====
> It would be nice if we can talk about to implement bareos into debian,
> maybe you are interessted to maintain the packages or we are open for
> what you suggest.
> Maybe we can chat or something else about to talk about the opportunities.
Frankly speaking, my free time is already spare and it is already
difficult for me to keep up with Bacula. I should also admit that the
upstream fight is not something I like, especially withing the Free
Software community.
> We already have finished packages which you can find unter
> download.bareos.org . We would like to have a clean transition from
> bacula to bareos in debian, so our and your user can benefit from the
> new code base.
Reading through the "Upgrade from Bacula 5.2 to Bareos" guide my simple
advice would be to document as much as possible the upgrade path and
stop there:
<http://www.bareos.org/en/HOWTO/articles/upgrade_bacula_bareos.html>
I admit that I know nothing about Bareos and I have never tried it, but
since it does not seem 100% compatible with Bacula I, for sure, will not
try any migration from Bacula, not for something so critical like
backups.
Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20131230/06ffca3d/attachment.sig>