Re: Exclusions not working
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Nov 4, 2000, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Apparently, there is a bug in glibc that is triggered by the pattern > > patching code in tar. They gave me a tar patch that works around it, > > and this solved my problem! > > You may want to post the patch here, for the record :-) OK, I've forwarded along the message from the GNU tar people... -- John -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Exclusions not working (FIX)
Alexandre Oliva requested that I post this message to amanda-users.
This is regarding the tar problem that I wrote here about.
Here is the message I got from the GNU tar folks, along with a patch.
Note that he couldn't duplicate it on Solaris (which doesn't use GNU
libc) but that it occured for me on two glibc platforms.
-- John
- Forwarded message from Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Addr-Extension: saved
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-Date: 04 Nov 2000 11:10:44 -0500
X-Addr-Extension:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:39:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Exclusions not working
Resent-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can't reproduce the problem on Solaris with GNU tar 1.13.18 using
the following scenario. Is this scenario the right one?
$ mkdir -p spool/postfix/private
$ touch spool/postfix/private/file
$ echo './spool/postfix/private/*' >x
$ gtar -cf /tmp/tar --exclude-from=x .
$ gtar -tvf /tmp/tar
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:29:33 ./
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:41 ./spool/
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:41 ./spool/postfix/
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:49 ./spool/postfix/private/
-rw-rw-r-- eggert/eggert26 2000-11-03 09:28:01 ./x
Possibly that is a bug in your GNU C library. Please try using GNU
tar 1.13.18 <ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/tar/> with the following patch;
it works around the glibc bug. If that doesn't work, please send a
standalone test case.
2000-11-02 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/fnmatch.c: Do not comment out all the code if we are
using the GNU C library, because in some cases we are
replacing buggy code in the GNU C library itself.
2000-10-30 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/fnmatch.c (FOLD): Do not assume that characters are unsigned.
===
RCS file: lib/fnmatch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -pu -r1.2 -r1.4
--- lib/fnmatch.c 2000/10/24 06:18:37 1.2
+++ lib/fnmatch.c 2000/11/03 00:23:21 1.4
@@ -27,22 +27,10 @@
#include
#include
-
-/* Comment out all this code if we are using the GNU C Library, and are not
- actually compiling the library itself. This code is part of the GNU C
- Library, but also included in many other GNU distributions. Compiling
- and linking in this code is a waste when using the GNU C library
- (especially if it is a shared library). Rather than having every GNU
- program understand `configure --with-gnu-libc' and omit the object files,
- it is simpler to just do this in the source for each such file. */
-
-#if defined _LIBC || !defined __GNU_LIBRARY__
-
-
# if defined STDC_HEADERS || !defined isascii
# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) 1
# else
-# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) isascii(c)
+# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) isascii (c)
# endif
# define ISUPPER(c) (IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN (c) && isupper (c))
@@ -61,7 +49,9 @@ fnmatch (const char *pattern, const char
register char c;
A
/* Note that this evaluates C many times. */
-# define FOLD(c) ((flags & FNM_CASEFOLD) && ISUPPER (c) ? tolower (c) : (c))
+# define FOLD(c) ((flags & FNM_CASEFOLD) && ISUPPER ((unsigned char) (c)) \
+ ? tolower ((unsigned char) (c)) \
+ : (c))
while ((c = *p++) != '\0')
{
@@ -238,5 +228,3 @@ fnmatch (const char *pattern, const char
# undef FOLD
}
-
-#endif /* _LIBC or not __GNU_LIBRARY__. */
- End forwarded message -
--
A
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com
#include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Exclusions not working
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 11:16:28AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: [...] > Apparently, there is a bug in glibc that is triggered by the pattern > patching code in tar. They gave me a tar patch that works around it, > and this solved my problem! [...] Really interesting: Amanda using tar shows up a bug in glibc...
Re: Exclusions not working
On Nov 4, 2000, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently, there is a bug in glibc that is triggered by the pattern
> patching code in tar. They gave me a tar patch that works around it,
> and this solved my problem!
You may want to post the patch here, for the record :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: Exclusions not working
Hi everyone, Thanks for your responses. Basically, I should clarify: I knew that the exclusions file was being read because some rules in it were working; it's just those with wildcards that were not. The thought occured to me that maybe I ought to write to the tar folks about it. Apparently, there is a bug in glibc that is triggered by the pattern patching code in tar. They gave me a tar patch that works around it, and this solved my problem! Thanks again to everyone for your helpful suggestions. -- John "Bernhard R. Erdmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:09:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In my exclude rules for the /var filesystem backup, I have some lines > > like this: > > > > ./spool/postfix/private/* > > ./lib/lists-archives/archives/* > > > > Which, according to the docs, are the right way to do this (there are > > sockets in those directories which cause gtar warnings.) However, > > they are ignored! Also, lines like: > > Did you install the exclude list as defined in the appropriate > dumptype on the client? Is the file read by Amanda/tar? (Check the > access time with "ls -lu".) > -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Exclusions not working
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:09:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Hi, > > In my exclude rules for the /var filesystem backup, I have some lines > like this: > > ./spool/postfix/private/* > ./lib/lists-archives/archives/* > > Which, according to the docs, are the right way to do this (there are > sockets in those directories which cause gtar warnings.) However, > they are ignored! Also, lines like: Did you install the exclude list as defined in the appropriate dumptype on the client? Is the file read by Amanda/tar? (Check the access time with "ls -lu".)
Re: Exclusions not working
>In my exclude rules for the /var filesystem backup, I have some lines >like this: > >./spool/postfix/private/* >./lib/lists-archives/archives/* > >Which, according to the docs, are the right way to do this (there are >sockets in those directories which cause gtar warnings.) However, >they are ignored! ... What do you mean by "they are ignored"? In particular, I'm not sure GNU tar doesn't go ahead and throw a warning because it sees these entries before it tests them agains the exclusion list (which seems like a bug to me). >Also, lines like: > >*/no-backup/* > >are ignored -- even though this is basically EXACTLY like an example >in the book chapter. ... I set up a test case and played with it some and can't get it to fail with the minimal information here. A couple of suggestions (from someone who does not use GNU tar): * Are you certain you are updating the exclusion list on the client? Some people get confused and update it on the server. * Did you look at /tmp/amanda/sendbackup*debug on the client and verify it is using the exclusion list/file you think it is? * Are you sure Amanda/GNU tar is using the exclusion list? If you do an "ls -lu" on the file right after Amanda runs, is it being referenced? Actually, that might be a bad test because if it gets backed up, that will update the access time. To test the various cases for the book, I wrote a little shell script that might help: ftp://gandalf.cc.purdue.edu/pub/amanda/gtartest-exclude >I have GNU tar 1.13.17 ... FYI, I ran my tests today with 1.12+, 1.13.17 and 1.13.18. >-- John John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exclusions not working
Hi, In my exclude rules for the /var filesystem backup, I have some lines like this: ./spool/postfix/private/* ./lib/lists-archives/archives/* Which, according to the docs, are the right way to do this (there are sockets in those directories which cause gtar warnings.) However, they are ignored! Also, lines like: */no-backup/* are ignored -- even though this is basically EXACTLY like an example in the book chapter. However: no-backup works. (Although it totally excludes the directory and not just its contents). Also, likes like this work: It seems that everything with asterisks is broken. Patterns without wildcards, eg: ./lib correctly exclude the directory. I have GNU tar 1.13.17, Amanda 2.4.1p1, running on a set of Debian GNU/Linux systems. Thanks! -- John -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
