Dear Christian, Thanks for your answer. I actually gave some serious some thought to this, but I have found some convincing reasons to not to merge two packages. I know you have no intention, but it was a good food for thought: 1. Since BiT backups the config for a particular backup inside the backup folder, a headless daemon can restore this automatically. 2. Somebody might want to build another UI for it. 2a. By adding a TUI based configuration editor/manager, BiT can trivially be converted to a server backup solution. It already has a lot of nice features to support these use cases. The Travis and DBus mails are not lost on me. I just need some time for these. Cheers, Hakan On 25.08.2022 17:23, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
Dear Hakan,
thanks for reply.
Am 25.08.2022 14:59 schrieb Hakan Bayındır:
You’re right. AFAIK, CLI application doesn’t have capability to build and edit configuration files and “profiles” in BackInTime parlance.
Because of that someone could say it makes not much sense to separate that two binaries in two deb files (or any other package format). Both should be shipped out together every time, right?
btw: No worry that I would change such fundamental things in the beginning of BiT maintaince. ;) I just think loud.
Kind Christian _______________________________________________ Bit-dev mailing list -- bit-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to bit-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/bit-dev.python.org/ Member address: hakan@bayindir.org