[pkg-bacula-devel] Should bacula-server Recommend: bacula-console?

Sven Hartge sven at svenhartge.de
Wed Sep 21 09:54:58 UTC 2016

On 21.09.2016 11:23, Carsten Leonhardt wrote:
> To be honest, I don't quite see the logic in here either:
> Package: bacula-server
> Architecture: all
> Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
> Depends:
>  bacula-director (>= ${source:Version}),
>  bacula-sd (>= ${source:Version}),
>  bacula-bscan (>= ${source:Version}),
>  ${misc:Depends}
> Recommends: bacula-fd
> Description: network backup service - server metapackage
>  Bacula is a set of programs to manage backup, recovery, and
>  verification of
>  data across a network of computers of different kinds.
>  .
>  This metapackage provides a standard server install, consisting of the
>  director and storage daemons.

> For a standard install, I'd guess the database is on the same host as
> the director (especially as by default sqlite3 is used). Consequently,
> bacula-fd is needed for the catalog backups. A "Recommends" seems too
> weak in my opinion. Additionally it seems unusual not to backup the
> backup server.

I have one system where the director is on a VM and backuped directly at
the hypervisor level, meaning I don't need the filed on that system.

I think that Recomends: is the right choice here. bacula-fd will be
installed per default, unless one uses "--no-install-recommends".


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20160921/d3baceff/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-bacula-devel mailing list