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

Re: Bug#315808: ITP: cedar-backup2 -- Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media

On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:34:43PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> First, this sounds like an interesting piece of software, and I'm happy
> to see it packaged.


> su, 2005-06-26 kello 01:51 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici kirjoitti:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: "Kenneth J. Pronovici" <pronovic@debian.org>
> > 
> > * Package name    : cedar-backup2
> Why the 2 in package name? It is better to avoid embedded version
> numbers (even the major number) in package names if at all possible.
> (Instead, make the software upwards compatible.)

As I mentioned at the bottom of my ITP, I have been maintaining these
packages in my own repository for quite a while now.  There was a
previous release (the v1.0 tree) for which the package was named
cedar-backup.  I continue to support the "old" release for security
problems or major bugs because some users didn't want to upgrade.  My
private repository offers both packages, but I am only uploading
cedar-backup2 to Debian.

The v2.0 release fully supports v1.0 configuration files, but the
command-line changed slightly, so the new version is not completely
"upwards compatible", as you say.

> >   Description     : Secure backup to CD-R and CD-RW media
> Why "secure"? The long description does not say anything that would
> justify the adjective, so it sounds like advertising, which package
> descriptions shouldn't be. Does the software encrypt the backups, for
> example? 

Cedar Backup uses SSH ("Secure rlogin/rsh/rcp replacement") for remote
data transfer.  The data ultimately written to disc is not encrypted.
If that is not enough to justify the adjective, I will remove it.

Perhaps you would prefer this?

   Description     : local and remote backups to CD-R/CD-RW media

It's probably more descriptive anyway.



Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpDGp7VsQy2L.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: