On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Peter J. Braam wrote:
> So what about "tar"?
>
> Stephen has been banging the drum about a unified API for ACL's and I think
> good things came out of that discussion.
>
> Building an archive of a file system with ACL's or other EA's and untarring
> it on a different file system/system is at present a mess and quite
> dangerous.
>
> I think DEC had a clever way of dealing with it, it put a file twice in
the
> tar archive, the first time it held the content of the ACL, the second time
> the name appeared it held the content of the file. So unless tar crashed in
> the middle, you'd get a somewhat sensible unpacking behaviour.
>
> I think that a families approach will give us the best chances of converting
> many different EA's sensibly from one file system to another when we tar it
> up and unpack it again.
>
> Comments anyone?
Yes, both tar and cpio have a single successor called pax (see the Austin
group drafts). Pax supports extended attributes, but the format to use for
ACLs isn't specified. Anyway, pax is downward compatible with tar to some
extent, and that seems the way to go.
We have been discussing this for a while on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but nobody has yet implemented pax extended
headers. Michael Ju. Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might be working on it, I'm
not sure.
Currently, the best thing you can do on Linux is to use getfacl for
backing up ACL's, but that is of course rather painful. (It's better than
nothing, though.)
Andreas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Gruenbacher, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact information: http://www.bestbits.at/~ag/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
