sven at svenhartge.de
Fri Dec 2 16:14:20 UTC 2016
On 02.12.2016 15:07, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> 3) Binary packages discussion at bacula-user
> Bacula wants to release their own binary packages for "major
> distrubtions". I'm not sure why they go to through all the effort,
> as it's already getting packaged, we here even have backports to
> provide the current version (ok, almost current right now).
Upstream has (as you also know) a rather strong opinion on the FHS and
the way Linux Distributions package Bacula.
Kern really likes of having all programs, configrations and other
resources bundled under /opt/bacula but this will never happen for
packages distributions provide.
I have seen advise on the bacula mailinglists in the past where it was
suggested to ditch the distributions packages and install from source
into /opt/bacula because this is the only way to do it if you want to
Main motivation might be to be able to provide packages for Bacula
Enterprise and also use the resources for those packages for the OSS
> It might be a good idea to ask the users there if and what they are
> missing, and what they expect to be better about those other
I wondered about that, too.
Acknowledged, the image of Debian (and Ubuntu) concerning Bacula has
taken a hit during the Wheezy and more so the Jessie release because
Bacula was effectively unmaintained/orphaned during that time and
building from source was the only way to get an up-to-date Bacula version.
But with the mostly current version being available via debian-backports
and the current version to be released with Stretch I personally don't
see any gain for an upstream provided package.
Maybe many users just don't know they can get the recent version for
Jessie for Backports and think the only way to get the current release
is from Bacula Systems directly?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the pkg-bacula-devel