Re: why do the comments in bacula-dir.conf say not to use "localhost" here?

On 2025-09-02 07:22, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, at 4:06 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>
>> Can someone please revise the comments to be more reflective of a
>> typical situation?
> Let's say a place uses 127.0.0.1 (or localhost). It's up. It's running.
>
> An FD (client / bacula-fd) is added. Backups work well. Everything is great.
>
> That's it. You're not adding any more clients. Practically speaking, you're done.
>
> If you want to add another client, presumably, on another host, it'll be at, let's say 10.0.0.1
>
> You configure the job. You run it.
>
> bacula-dir contacts bacula-fd (at 10.0.0.1) and says:
>
> Backup this FileSet to this bacula-sd (127.0.0.1).
>
> Oh. That isn't going to happen.
>
> Other considerations. Using certificates is much easier with hostnames than IP addresses.
>
> I also suspect many examples, now lost to history, arose before those comments were added in.
>
> If your situation is working only with 127.0.0.1 and you'd like to change that, please ask away.

Once I got the client fd connection working, I started running a backup. 
It seems to be working with the sd address as 127.0..0.1. That seems 
reasonable since the dir is running on the local host also.

So I'm still left with the initial question: why do the comments say not 
to use localhost and to put in the FQDN, when the only way I've been 
able to get it to work is to use 127.0.0.1?