| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On pon, 2017-08-14 at 21:58 +0200, Thomas Beierlein wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> * 'bacula-clientonly' becomes 'clientonly' |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This is still negative logic in disguise. clientonly = noserver. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> * 'bacula-nodir' will be replaced by 'director' but with inverted logic |
| 9 |
>> * 'bacula-nosd' will be replaced by 'storage-daemon' (also inverted). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> 'director' and 'storage-daemon' will be active by default resulting in an |
| 12 |
>> installation with backup director and storage daemon enabled. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
++ |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I guess to make it a bit more explicit, would it make sense to have 3 flags: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
client - install the client (or consider calling it file-daemon instead) |
| 20 |
director - install the director |
| 21 |
storage-daemon - install the storage daemon |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Omit the first if we always want the client. I don't see the need for |
| 24 |
a "clientonly" flag if each of the two server components already have |
| 25 |
their own flags. If somebody doesn't want to have to know what each |
| 26 |
of the components do they probably shouldn't be messing around with |
| 27 |
Bacula as it is anything but install-and-forget. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives