Graeme Humphries wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:34 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
After reading all that thread I have to ask:
Do you all agree with me editing the man-page as Jon suggested?
It seems reasonable to me.
Edited and committed to the xml-docs-cvs.
--
Stefan G. Weichinger
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 13:59 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I think this is going to be problematic, Graeme. But I'll defer to
> someone who is a bit more cognizant of the actual code. I do know
> that I cannot run either amcheck or amdump here as root, the exit,
> complaining about it, is instan
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 11:31, Graeme Humphries wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 22:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> amanda cannot do an suid root if it was built as root, no way
>> around it due to the failure of the suid command if its already
>> owned by root.
>
>Certainly, but I don't think the
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:34 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> After reading all that thread I have to ask:
>
> Do you all agree with me editing the man-page as Jon suggested?
It seems reasonable to me.
Jon LaBadie wrote:
Seems to me the only thing that needs changing is the
amanda.conf man page. Currently it says:
... With exclude list, the string is a file name on the
client containing GNU-tar exclude expressions.
...
If optional is specified for exclude list, then amcheck
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:32:13AM -0600, Graeme Humphries wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 11:01 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > BTW, is it just amcheck, or amdump as well,
> > that does or does not complain?
>
> In my experience it's only been amcheck that complains, amdump is still
> happy to do th
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 11:01 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> BTW, is it just amcheck, or amdump as well,
> that does or does not complain?
In my experience it's only been amcheck that complains, amdump is still
happy to do the backups, so this confusion hasn't been critical. ;)
--
Graeme Humphries ([
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 22:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> amanda cannot do an suid root if it was built as root, no way around
> it due to the failure of the suid command if its already owned by
> root.
Certainly, but I don't think the Debian packages were built as root. I
just choose to run amdu
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 10:06:07AM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> Jon LaBadie wrote:
> >
> >Paul,
> >I probably should look it up myself, but I'm feeling lazy.
>
> Lazy, but you're correct!
>
> >I thought that the various exclude features were generalized so that
> >amanda would make up its own exc
Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:14:19PM +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
Amanda will not complain
- if the exclude file on the client is not there at all
In this case amanda can construct a gtar argument list that does
not contain the exclude list of a non-existing file.
- or if the f
--On Tuesday, July 05, 2005 15:20:15 -0600 Graeme Humphries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:14 +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
>> - or if the file is not readable: in that case amanda trusts the
>>suid-root runtar executable so that gnutar can read the contents of
>>the f
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 13:19, Graeme Humphries wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 12:07 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
>> You really shouldn't be running Amanda as root, but as a separate
>> user. When you run 'make install' as root it installs the
>> executables that need root access suid root. Then when
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 12:47, Graeme Humphries wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:41 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
>> amcheck runs as your Amanda user and may not have permissions to
>> the directory where your exclude file lives.
>
>I *thought* I had amanda running as root on the client, but I may be
>
Graeme Humphries wrote:
I'd rather just have any permission related error ignored if the
optional keyword is used. Is there a situation where we *would* want it
to hard error out on an optional exclude list if it can't get into the
directory the exclude list is supposed to be in?
Amanda will no
Title: Re: exclude list optional not working?
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:34 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> If there were no exclude file, then the admin can reasonably
> feel that it is not contributing to the list of excluded file.
> Thus no error on setting optional is reasonable.
>
Title: Re: exclude list optional not working?
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:14 +0200, Paul Bijnens wrote:
> - or if the file is not readable: in that case amanda trusts the
> suid-root runtar executable so that gnutar can read the contents of
> the file, never mind the permissions
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:50 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
> You can do what I do, just ignore the errors from amcheck that you
> know are bogus.
That's probably what I'll end up doing, but I know that for me it's
generally bad practice, because it means that eventually I'll just stop
paying attention
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:19:09AM -0600, Graeme Humphries wrote:
>
> > In my experience the error occurs if Amanda can't access the directory
> > to see if the file is there. Perhaps the docs need to be rephrased.
>
> I'd rather just have any permission related error ignored if the
> optional ke
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 12:07 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
> You really shouldn't be running Amanda as root, but as a separate
> user. When you run 'make install' as root it installs the executables
> that need root access suid root. Then when your backups run it can
> access everything necessary.
I'
--On Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:47:59 -0600 Graeme Humphries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:41 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
>> amcheck runs as your Amanda user and may not have permissions to the
>> directory where your exclude file lives.
>
> I *thought* I had amanda running
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 18:07 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> As you have read the docs, this file should be specified relative to the
> DLE on the client.
Yep. I want it to, like shown in the docs, just look for
a .amanda.excludes file in the root of every share I'm backing up.
> I'd suggest
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:41 -0500, Frank Smith wrote:
> amcheck runs as your Amanda user and may not have permissions to the
> directory where your exclude file lives.
I *thought* I had amanda running as root on the client, but I may be
wrong. It doesn't complain that it can't access any of those
--On Tuesday, July 05, 2005 09:51:36 -0600 Graeme Humphries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've just added exclude lists as per the examples in the online
> documentation, with the following configuration:
>
> exclude list optional ".amanda.excludes"
>
> However, amcheck now complains on every it
Graeme Humphries wrote:
I've just added exclude lists as per the examples in the online
documentation, with the following configuration:
exclude list optional ".amanda.excludes"
However, amcheck now complains on every item in the disklist for a
*single* host, that it "[Can't open exclude file '
I've just added exclude lists as per the examples in the online
documentation, with the following configuration:
exclude list optional ".amanda.excludes"
However, amcheck now complains on every item in the disklist for a
*single* host, that it "[Can't open exclude file '/filepath' :
Permission de
25 matches
Mail list logo
