On Monday 12 February 2007 00:52, Toomas Aas wrote: >> I wonder if that version of tar is biting us again. Can you back up >> to 1.15-1 and give that a try? > >Looks like going back to tar 1.15.1 really helped. With tar 1.16 (as >well as with tar 1.16.1) the behaviour was really strange - first two >amdump runs the incrementals were smaller than fulls (as expected), but >then suddenly all the incrementals became as big as fulls. I first tried >going to 1.16.1 and added the patches discussed here: > >http://www.nabble.com/FW:-tar-1.16-listed-incremental-failure-t2920103.h >tml > >That didn't help. Then I installed tar 1.15.1 and I've now had 3 >successful amdump runs. That's why it took me so long to report back. >Hopefully my luck lasts.
Same here. I've resisted the urge to update tar precisely because of other messages on this list that seem to have been pointing index fingers at tar-1.16-1. I think there is an estimate phase workaround that may help, but I'd personally druther rms worked on gplv3 than tar. He, or one of his cohorts, seems bound and determined to keep adding bells and whistles until the tree finally breaks. Some parts of an OS, which when they demonstrateably work correctly when asked to interoperate with other utilities such as amanda, really should be locked away until such time as the users are clamoring for this or that new feature they just can't live without. Tar seems to be a favorite playground for some reason. But, that's just the opinion of one well aged old fart, take it for what its worth. ;-) I'm glad I could help. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
