On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 05:30:01AM -0800, Szechuan Death wrote:
> Question: Is there any really outstanding reason why a suitably-
> licensed database or fork thereof, e.g. PostgreSQL, couldn't be fully
> integrated into the OpenBSD distribution? Alternately, is there any
> reason why a small-scale SQLish database couldn't be implemented for
> OpenBSD? (Ex: "Theo thinks this is dumb, therefore Satan will be
> ice-skating across Hell before such a thing makes its way into the CVS
> tree.")
>
> I ask this because there a number of interesting things that could be
> accomplished if there were even a minimal SQLish database readily
> available in the system. This occurred to me in the course of working
> on porting Bacula to OpenBSD: "Hey, wouldn't an Open{SSH,BGPD,NTPD,
> CVS}-style integrated backup package suck a lot less?" Effective backup
> software is an absolute requirement for any sort of production
> environment. Files need to be backed up. The software out there for
> this is not really great, to tell you the truth, and the options for
> OpenBSD are even less great. Bacula seems to be okay - I have gotten
> it to run - but it's more than a little messy inside, has some
> non-intuitive bits, has too many knobs, doesn't have some necessary
> features (migration being a big one), and is clearly a "security-
> optional" software package. Not great, but the best thing going so
> far.
>
> A small, simple, effective, secure-by-default, (eventually) multi-
> platform backup package done the OpenBSD way might be just what the
> doctor ordered. There's plenty of backup software out there, from
> big vendors (Veritas, TSM) and F/OSS authors (Bacula, Amanda) alike,
> but all of it sucks to some extent. Why not something that doesn't
> suck, that just works, that is just secure out-of-the-box?
>
> Trouble is, such a thing compels the use of some form of database
> for effective cataloging of stored files. OpenBSD doesn't have one
> on-board as far as I can see, just db, which probably isn't gonna
> cut it. That means that the choices boil down to a) write one from
> scratch (erk!), or b) find one that is suitably licensed and import
> it. There are some BSD-licensed DBs out there, but the best one
> is PostgreSQL. Assuming that a database _was_ included, though,
> there are some interesting side effects; there are plenty of software
> packages out there that require the use of some kind of database, most
> of which will work fine with PostgreSQL, so having an audited fork of
> it in the source tree would make things a lot easier and more secure.
>
> So, is the inclusion of a database into OpenBSD proper desirable?
> What about the idea of a nice, simple integrated backup package?
> (Which sort of requires the database, but suppose that they are
> separate.) If not desirable, are these at least tolerable? If
> either stands a chance of inclusion in OpenBSD, i.e. they are not
> prima facie unacceptable to the design goals of the OpenBSD team,
> what would the requirements for their inclusion be?
>
> --
> (c) 2005 Unscathed Haze via Central Plexus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
> Big Brother is watching you. Learn to become Invisible.
> |-------- Your message must be this wide to ride the Internet. --------|
>
If you want PostgreSQL, install it from the ports tree.
What is wrong with dump/restore and using tar for a backup solution?
