New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BACKUP=NSR set NSRSERVER properly in 650_check_iso_recoverable.sh #3077
Conversation
In layout/save/NSR/default/650_check_iso_recoverable.sh alsos read NSR server name from var/lib/rear/recovery/nsr_server by using the same code snippet as in verify/NSR/default/400_verify_nsr.sh see #2162 (comment) and #3069
@hpannenb @viper1986 @rear/contributors |
As far as I currently see Reason (a far as I see):
which is (as far as I see) the only place where But during "rear mkrescue" So |
Looking at this whole code area again I'm starting to wonder what we are trying to achieve there. Most other rear/usr/share/rear/layout/save/GALAXY11/default/400_check_galaxy11_configuration.sh Line 3 in e035d18
Can we maybe clarify why we try to do much more for NSR? Why do we need to verify the client or server configuration or the existence of backups in NSR during the Maybe the actual "fix" would be getting rid of this all together? |
As far as I see from the
output |
As far as I understand what @tomglx requested in It think this is (as far as I understand it) bad
|
Thanks @jsmeix for finding it, I apparently wasn't part of the conversation back then. Looking at it again I'd like to either
My reasoning is that ReaR therefore I'd like to make backup monitoring at least optional, and simplify integrating custom code for this purpose. WDYT @rear/contributors ? |
@schlomo So I vote for
I described my personal reasoning in the section |
I think we should try to be nice to our users, which is why I suggest to remove the functionality from It seems that for users it is simpler to refer to a custom script or put custom code in ReaR config compared to plugging their script into the ReaR filesystem hierarchy to be executed as part of a workflow. That was the original idea of ReaR extensibility that apparently doesn't find much acceptance from users. |
@schlomo |
I'd guess that it mostly an aversion to go and patch 3rd party software, even though it is intended to be used that way. Adding a file into the ReaR directories will not break RPM or DEB validation, which is why I proposed it as the original way of extending ReaR (via a Anyway, would you like to rework this PR as discussed here? |
No, I cannot. |
Type: Bug Fix
Impact: Normal
Reference to related issue (URL):
BACKUP=NSR: "rear checklayout" always results exit code 1 #3069
How was this pull request tested?
I cannot test it because I do not use BACKUP=NSR
Description of the changes in this pull request:
In layout/save/NSR/default/650_check_iso_recoverable.sh
also read NSR server name from var/lib/rear/recovery/nsr_server
by using the same code snippet as in verify/NSR/default/400_verify_nsr.sh
see #2162 (comment)
and #3069