Frank Smith wrote:
--On Friday, November 01, 2002 19:21:50 -0500 Galen Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hmmm...it seems I sent my last reply only to Joshua..anywho...anyone have any clue as to which maillist one needs to be on for tar issues? I had responded to Joshua that I'm beginning to believe that tar is at issue here (tar 1.13.25). It's either
tar or the options fed to it but I can't find where in the code the options are fed to tar for the backup so I can try to give it a -g instead of -G (it was easy to find for amrecover).
GNU tar bug reports should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but see below..
Thanks but it turns out not to be a bug per se...
I have followed up with a better description in a different email...I agree with you that what you are saying is what indeed should happen...
What exactly is the problem? The purpose of doing a restore (to most people)
is to make the filesystem after the restore be just like it was at the time
of the backup. This means that files deleted between backup levels need to
be deleted by the corresponding restore level.
If you need a file that was deleted before the incremental, restore it from
the next lower level backup.
On filesystems with limited space and a fair amount of churn, restoring all
the files ever deleted could also cause you to fill up your filesystem.
=G=
