Hi Karanbir, On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 13:08, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >>> 1) It doesn't work on a 64-bit machine, since the Perl modules will be >>> installed under /usr/lib64 but they will require '/usr/lib' instead. >> >> My backup server isn't 64 bit, so I can't really say much here. > > Can the article not be made more Arch agnostic ? Sorry, it's not the articule that does not work in 64-bit arch, it's the RPM that does not work (without tweaking) in a 64-bit arch. Please read my original post. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 13:08, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: > Whats the big issue though ? if there was going to be a list of the > top-5 things that make the Fedora BackupPC process easier than whats > provided by CentOS, what would your candidates be ? 1) Configured as CGI (and not mod_perl) by default. Using it with mod_perl requires changing the user that runs Apache, which is something I'm not too keen on... With the Fedora one, if you really want, you can install mod_perl and configure it later without changing any file other than config files. With the CentOS one, to make it run as CGI involves changing permissions of a file that will be overwritten on the next RPM upgrade. 2) Directory structure. CentOS's BackupPC is installed under /usr/lib/BackupPC (and /usr/lib64/BackupPC in 64-bit platforms, which does not work since the Perl scripts continue to import /usr/lib and not /usr/lib64), while the Fedora one installs the Perl scripts under /usr/share/BackupPC/lib. It seems more sensible to me to put them under /usr/share, since the files are Perl scripts and not arch specific. 3) Defaults in config file are more appropriate (for me). This is extremely personal, but I found the defaults to be more appropriate in the one from Fedora. In particular, the default backup method in Fedora is "rsync" and not "smb". 4) Directory where host-specific files are created is under /etc and is created with the RPM. The directory for <hostname>.pl files is /etc/BackupPC/pc/ in Fedora's RPM. In CentOS's RPM, I don't remember exactly, it's possible that it's the same, but it's not created by the RPM, or it's under TopDir, like /var/lib/backuppc/pc/, or even if it's not that one, it seems to me that that one is created by the RPM which suggests putting files there would work. 5) No sudo requirements (?). Reading the guide, it seems to me that sudo also has to be changed in the server (I'm not sure why that is needed): http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BackupPC#head-1f2ecef5e9445ff5715eb486501bed06e3d5269f Including removing "Defaults requiretty", which is something I'm against since "sudo" in my opinion is a tool for interactive use. I did not have to do anything like that in Fedora's one. I think these would be the 5 top reasons in order (I admit the latest one was not an issue I encountered, but something I picked up from the guide). Don't take me wrong, I'm very grateful for CentOS and all the efforts around CentOS, in particular I'm an user of CentOS Plus and it's very valuable for me in terms of hardware support. I also certainly appreciate the fact that CentOS is packaging a great tool such as BackupPC is. The only thing is that, comparing the CentOS package with the Fedora one, the Fedora one suits me better, and I believe the same reasons why it did for me would be valid for other users, in particular beginners with not much experience in web server configuration. Thanks, Filipe
