Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, that's the way --listed-incremental works now. It processes entire > > directory no matter what other options say. > > What does "now" in this context mean?
It means "in this moment of time", "in its current state"; > Is there any intention to fix --listed-incremental? Yes, the work is underway. > So what exactly are the plans for fixing --listed-incremental ? Are > there any? Historically, the intention of incremental mode (both -G and -g) was to produce a dump of the entire filesystem, so that its contents can later be restored exactly. This means, among other things, that when restoring from incremental dumps all files present in the filesystem, but not in the archive, are deleted. This behavior creates difficulties when operating with, e.g. --files-from option. In fact, the provisions for archiving individual files (as opposed to entire directories) with --listed-incremental appeared only in version 1.14. So, returning to the plans. The new incremental mode should, first of all, store more inode metadata in the archive. Among other things this will fix testcase "listed02.at", a problem often reported to the list. Further, it should keep exact information of the files being excluded from archivation, either by --exclude option or because they were not present in --file-from file, which will help implement these options in a consistent way. > [You will probably remember that there are other serious > problems for example when using --listed-incremental in combination > with --one-file-system This have been fixed in version 1.15. See NEWS:53 > or when passing relative vs. absolute path names, etc.] Unfortunately, it is not only listed-incremental problem. Removing absolute file name prefixes affects verify mode as well. I did not find any feasible solution for this yet. Regards, Sergey _______________________________________________ Bug-tar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
