On Saturday 19 August 2006 03:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Friday 18 August 2006 11:35, Toomas Aas wrote:
>> >I'm planning to upgrade my Amanda server (currently 2.4.5) to 2.5.0p2.
>> >I'm wondering whether GNU tar 1.13.25 is still "officially" consi
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 11:35, Toomas Aas wrote:
> >I'm planning to upgrade my Amanda server (currently 2.4.5) to 2.5.0p2.
> >I'm wondering whether GNU tar 1.13.25 is still "officially" considered a
> >good version, or is it absolutely required to upgrade
On Friday 18 August 2006 12:01, Ian Turner wrote:
>Toomas,
>
>GNU tar 1.13 should be good;
No Ian, plain 1.13 is broken, 1.13-19, 1.13-25, and 1.15-1 are the known
good versions.
>The real troublemaker is tar 1.14, which
> will silently corrupt your archives and throw away data. Unfortunately,
On Friday 18 August 2006 11:35, Toomas Aas wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I'm planning to upgrade my Amanda server (currently 2.4.5) to 2.5.0p2.
>I'm wondering whether GNU tar 1.13.25 is still "officially" considered a
>good version, or is it absolutely required to upgrade to 1.15.1?
>
>I noticed that when inst
Ian Turner wrote:
On Friday 18 August 2006 11:35, Toomas Aas wrote:
BTW, I currently use dump for backups, so gtar is only used for indexes.
No, Amanda will even use dump to generate indices. So actually you don't need
tar at all.
Of course, what was I thinking.
Toomas,
GNU tar 1.13 should be good; The real troublemaker is tar 1.14, which will
silently corrupt your archives and throw away data. Unfortunately, some
distributions patch their tar with other code, so some versions of tar 1.13
are problematic, whereas some versions of tar 1.14 are perfectly
Hello!
I'm planning to upgrade my Amanda server (currently 2.4.5) to 2.5.0p2.
I'm wondering whether GNU tar 1.13.25 is still "officially" considered a
good version, or is it absolutely required to upgrade to 1.15.1?
I noticed that when installing Amanda from FreeBSD ports, the
installation p
