[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#69197: marked as done (base: Inadequate backup instructions and tools)



Your message dated 22 Aug 2000 22:48:17 -0400
with message-id <oalmxozo9a.fsf@arroz.fake>
and subject line Bug#69197: base: Inadequate backup instructions and tools
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Aug 2000 20:14:45 +0000
>From era@away.lingsoft.fi Tue Aug 15 15:14:45 2000
Return-path: <era@away.lingsoft.fi>
Received: from munkkipossu.in.helsinki.fi (away.lingsoft.fi) [::ffff:128.214.182.154] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 13On6h-00038a-00; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:14:44 -0500
Received: (from era@localhost)
	by away.lingsoft.fi (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id OAA14589;
	Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:07:24 +0300
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:07:24 +0300
Message-Id: <200008151107.OAA14589@away.lingsoft.fi>
From: era eriksson <era@iki.fi>
Subject: base: Inadequate backup instructions and tools
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.2.9
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: base
Version: 20000815
Severity: wishlist

This should probably be severity: 2 or something like that but due to
the nature of this report, I think "wishlist" is the most appropriate.

I have a slightly old installation and if this has been fixed in newer
releases of Debian, I'll have to apologize. Also, there's -- obviously
-- a lot more homework I could have done, but I thought it better to
send in a simple report now rather than probably never get it done.

The perceived problem is that the base system doesn't appear to have
any facilities for making backups, beyond including basic tools such
as cpio(1) and tar(1). If the system is supposed to be usable by a
neophyte with limited administration experience (as I believe is the
intention), at the very least the FAQ and/or policy should contain a
few notes about the importance of backups and some tips on common
backup procedures.

I would also recommend including a simple backup script. The problem
here of course is that it needs to be robust, yet be usable on wildly
differing sorts of hardware, ranging from basic 386:es with only a
floppy disk for backups, to monster servers with multiple tape drives,
removable disks, local network services (backup over ftp? NFS? rsync?
HTTP PUT?), etc.

I believe NetBSD comes with a barely adequate dump(8) which could
perhaps be used as a starting point. Another candidate I'd like to
mention is the tob package, although it is "tape-oriented", as the
name implies. But it might not be too hard to adapt it to use other
media as well.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to upgrade to the most recent Debian in
order to see if this has been improved; much less play around with a
clean install of the latest release. Of course, I'd love to be wrong
on this. But if this bug report is warranted, at least I hope I can
help give Somebody Else (tm) a nudge in the right direction.

Thank you for your time,

/* era */

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.0
Kernel Version: Linux away 2.0.34 #1 Sun Feb 28 21:48:09 EET 1999 i586 unknown


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 69197-done) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Aug 2000 02:47:44 +0000
>From adam@onshore.com Tue Aug 22 21:47:44 2000
Return-path: <adam@onshore.com>
Received: from relay03.netaddress.usa.net [::ffff:204.68.24.183] 
	by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 13RQZr-0002iJ-00; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:47:44 -0500
Received: (qmail 11865 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2000 02:47:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO arroz.fake) (postfix@64.22.101.122)
  by relay03.netaddress.usa.net with SMTP; 23 Aug 2000 02:47:42 -0000
Received: by arroz.fake (Postfix, from userid 421)
	id EBF9C93802; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:48:17 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: apharris@arroz.fake
To: era eriksson <era@iki.fi>
Cc: 69197-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#69197: base: Inadequate backup instructions and tools
References: <200008151107.OAA14589@away.lingsoft.fi>
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: 22 Aug 2000 22:48:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: era eriksson's message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:07:24 +0300"
Message-ID: <oalmxozo9a.fsf@arroz.fake>
Lines: 14
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: 69197-done@bugs.debian.org


I don't understand.  The base system is meant to be a minimally
functional system, not a rescue system for recovery.  It will be
getting *smaller* in time, not larger.

If you want the backup tools, you can install the additional packages
you need.

We are not interested in adding backup scripts to base when much
better backup systems exist in Debian.  It's all about removing
redundnacy, not increasing it.

-- 
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>



Reply to: