BackupPC

Hi folks,

I've read with interest the next references:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-de
vel/2006-April/002216.html
http://bugs.c
entos.org/view.php?id=1299

Currently I'm using the package without problems.
In fact, I installed it from source before and I used the
perl modules
provided by Dries' and Dag's repo in first time.
At present moment I've removed the mentioned packages and
I've used only
the c4-testing repo. All the installation and dependencies
resolving
processes has worked great. Good work Johnny ;)

¿Are there some intentions to move BackupPC from
testing-repo to
extras-repo?

I think it is an interesting package, especially in hybrid
environment
(Win+Linux, ie.)


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I've read with interest the next references:
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-de
vel/2006-April/002216.html
> http://bugs.c
entos.org/view.php?id=1299
> 
> Currently I'm using the package without problems.
> In fact, I installed it from source before and I used
the perl modules
> provided by Dries' and Dag's repo in first time.
> At present moment I've removed the mentioned packages
and I've used only
> the c4-testing repo. All the installation and
dependencies resolving
> processes has worked great. Good work Johnny ;)
> 
> ¿Are there some intentions to move BackupPC from
testing-repo to
> extras-repo?
> 
> I think it is an interesting package, especially in
hybrid environment
> (Win+Linux, ie.)

The current version is 3.0.0 and would be considerably
easier for a new 
user. In a new install it puts all the config files under
/etc/BackuPC 
including the per-pc configs and it provides a web based
editor for the 
configurations. Another improvement is that it no longer
blocks backups 
during the nightly cleanup run.  It may also require some
updated perl 
modules.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesellgmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 07:40 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > I've read with interest the next references:
> > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-de
vel/2006-April/002216.html
> > http://bugs.c
entos.org/view.php?id=1299
> > 
> > Currently I'm using the package without problems.
> > In fact, I installed it from source before and I
used the perl modules
> > provided by Dries' and Dag's repo in first time.
> > At present moment I've removed the mentioned
packages and I've used only
> > the c4-testing repo. All the installation and
dependencies resolving
> > processes has worked great. Good work Johnny ;)
> > 
> > ¿Are there some intentions to move BackupPC from
testing-repo to
> > extras-repo?
> > 
> > I think it is an interesting package, especially
in hybrid environment
> > (Win+Linux, ie.)
> 
> The current version is 3.0.0 and would be considerably
easier for a new 
> user. In a new install it puts all the config files
under /etc/BackuPC 
> including the per-pc configs and it provides a web
based editor for the 
> configurations. Another improvement is that it no
longer blocks backups 
> during the nightly cleanup run.  It may also require
some updated perl 
> modules.

He has released that final now  ...

Back to the drawing board :P

The only reason the current version is still in testing and
not
production is that it requires running apache (httpd) as the
backuppc
user (due to the performance issues if not using mod_perl).

People who are running BackupPC on a separate server where
backups are
it's major function will appreciate that.  Some users want
(or expect)
it to run as the apache user, which it will not.

That can cause issues ... therefore I have kept it in
testing.  (Though
it works great for me in production, with the mod_perl
setup).

There is a version in Fedora Extras that takes the non
mod_perl approach
and runs as the apache user.

I will upgrade this to the new version soon.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Johnny Hughes wrote:

> The only reason the current version is still in testing
and not
> production is that it requires running apache (httpd)
as the backuppc
> user (due to the performance issues if not using
mod_perl).

Pesonally I'd recommend shipping it with a dependency on
perl-suidperl 
and use the suid bit on the cgi program to permit access
instead of 
using mod_perl.  It's not even necessary to use the web
interface and it 
it runs at a usable speed even as a standard cgi.

> People who are running BackupPC on a separate server
where backups are
> it's major function will appreciate that.  Some users
want (or expect)
> it to run as the apache user, which it will not.

Actually it could run as the apache user as easily as
anything else if 
you go that route.  The only place you have a problem is
where you have 
other web services that might not be as secure and users
that need 
access to apache-owned files that shouldn't access all the
backups.  An 
alternative would be to make a 2nd instance of httpd using
mod_perl that 
runs on a different port.

> That can cause issues ... therefore I have kept it in
testing.  (Though
> it works great for me in production, with the mod_perl
setup).
> 
> There is a version in Fedora Extras that takes the non
mod_perl approach
> and runs as the apache user.
> 
> I will upgrade this to the new version soon.

I think it is more important to have backups working than to
save a 
fraction of a second per page when you browse through them,
but I'd use 
the suid approach if it isn't on mod_perl.   One feature
that would be 
nice, and is currently not included would be to have
mod_auth_pam in the 
httpd package.  Backuppc permits authenticated http access
and can 
restrict non-admin users to backups of machines that they
'own' as 
specified in backuppc's host file.   However, without
mod_auth_pam it is 
not easy to match up http authentication with the
users/passwords the 
rest of the system knows (potentially including several
schemes).  It 
isn't that hard to add, but does anyone know why it isn't
included in a 
system that otherwise revolves around PAM?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesellgmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel