Am 12.07.21 um 19:01 schrieb Debra S Baddorf:
Using a global exclude list seems to work out fine, so thanks for pointing that
out.
Enjoy the weekend!
Cheers,
Kees
Yeah - I realized later that you might have meant “leading dot”.
I was actually using ./amanda-exclude-file
to indicate
can share my settings if it help.
>>
>
> The root cause of the errors generated in my case is the FAT32 filesystem not
> supporting leading dots in filenames.
>
> Using a global exclude list seems to work out fine, so thanks for pointing
> that out.
>
> E
filesystem not supporting leading dots in filenames.
Using a global exclude list seems to work out fine, so thanks for
pointing that out.
Enjoy the weekend!
Cheers,
Kees
Hi,
I am using a .amanda-exclude.list per DLE on the top of it and is not
broken for me. I can share my settings if it help.
Kind regards
Jose M Calhariz
On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 05:13:19PM +, Debra S Baddorf wrote:
> On the other hand: I also used .amanda-exclude-list
> at t
On the other hand: I also used .amanda-exclude-list
at the top of any DLE that needed an exclude list.
However, they broke a few years ago. I don’t know if that was my
version of Linux or my version of amanda.
So trying a globalized version is a good idea.
Deb Baddorf
Fermilab
> On
-tar-var {
comp-root-tar
comment "Root partitions with compression, special for /var"
exclude list "/etc/amanda/DailySet1/excludes.var"
}
Well that's easy: I was under the impression one must have a excludes
file per DLE. I was wrong.
I'm no expert on UEF
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 12:05:52 +0200
Kees Meijs | Nefos wrote:
> Using Amanda 3.5.1-2+b2 (Debian) I've configured:
>
> > exclude list optional ".amanda-excludes.gtar"
I wonder why you put the excludes file in with the stuff being backed
up? I usually put my excludes f
Hi list,
In danger of asking something that has been asked before (yes, I did try
some search engines)...
Using Amanda 3.5.1-2+b2 (Debian) I've configured:
exclude list optional ".amanda-excludes.gtar"
When making back-ups of UEFI capable hosts the back-up reports back
Here's some more info:
The reason why ZWC is not excluding the files is because of the way
exclude pattern is specified. Following are my test results:
ZWC 3.1.1 rev 22762
ZMC 3.1.1 rev 22752
1. Correct exclude pattern (Added using ZMC):
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell dus...@zmanda.com wrote:
1. Correct exclude pattern (Added using ZMC):
*
192.168.15.217 C:/Documents and Settings/Administrator/My
Documents/My Music C:/Documents and
Hi all,
I'm here again with another ZWC-exclude list issue.
This paste (http://pastebin.mozilla.org/743992) shows a DLE for a ZWC
client and a listing of the resulting dump. This configuration is
setup with the sole purpose of testing the ZWC and exclude lists.
As you can see, the exclude list
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/744016
Updated to include a bit more information.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Chris Nighswonger
cnighswon...@foundations.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I'm here again with another ZWC-exclude list issue.
This paste (http://pastebin.mozilla.org/743992) shows a DLE
currently in internal testing that might
improve the situation. It should be ready in a few days. Send
another email if you don't hear anything about it soon?
Ok.
I did find some further info in the wiki which indicated that the ZWC
requires the full path for each entry in the exclude list. I did
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Chris Nighswonger
cnighswon...@foundations.edu wrote:
So... am I missing something that I don't know about or is this a bug?
Replying on Paddy's behalf:
There's a 3.1.1 that's currently in internal testing that might
improve the situation. It should be ready
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Chris Nighswonger
cnighswon...@foundations.edu wrote:
So is the only way to do this to have a dumptype setup using 'exclude'
and 'exclude append' to catch each of potentially 300 some multimedia
file extensions? This would mean 300 some 'exclude'/'exclude
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell dus...@zmanda.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Chris Nighswonger
cnighswon...@foundations.edu wrote:
So is the only way to do this to have a dumptype setup using 'exclude'
and 'exclude append' to catch each of potentially 300 some
I'm wanting to exclude from my user's Windows clients all multimedia
files. I plan to use regexps to match file extensions (ie. ./*.mp3 and
so forth).
It is my understanding that ZWC does not respect exclude lists stored
on the client.
So is the only way to do this to have a dumptype setup using
Martineau martin...@zmanda.com
To: Jobst Schmalenbach jo...@barrett.com.au
Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: exclude list not working on clients.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:03:21 -0500
Jobst,
What you do looks good, post the sendbackup.*.debug file.
Jean-Louis
Jobst Schmalenbach
Hi.
I have one client host that refuses to listen to the exclude list option in
the dumptype.
I know it works, for example I backup a 120GB /amanda directory/parition on the
tape
host that contains the directory holdingdisk, that is excluded in the dumptype:
define dumptype amandadir
Jobst,
What you do looks good, post the sendbackup.*.debug file.
Jean-Louis
Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
Hi.
I have one client host that refuses to listen to the exclude list option in the dumptype.
I know it works, for example I backup a 120GB /amanda directory/parition on the tape
host
). Bugger. Need to do some research.
Jobst
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Louis Martineau martin...@zmanda.com
To: Jobst Schmalenbach jo...@barrett.com.au
Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: exclude list not working on clients.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:03:21 -0500
Jobst,
What you do
).
They should be in /tmp/amanda but they are not (except on the
tape host itslef). Bugger. Need to do some research.
Jobst
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Louis Martineau martin...@zmanda.com
To: Jobst Schmalenbach jo...@barrett.com.au
Cc: amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: exclude list
Gee, can we be sure of anything with gnutar ;)
I have that small project in my mind that would do a tar cv and a tar
cv --exclude-from and compare both output.
I will do that when I have a day free :)
Olivier
Thanks for your replies.
I could have phrased my question slightly better.
I want to know what the exclude list should look like to make sure I exclude
all files with these extensions in any directory/subdirectory contained
under the disklist entries:
.ora
.dbf
.dmp
.dmp.gz.xx
If I
I want to know what the exclude list should look like to make sure I exclude
all files with these extensions in any directory/subdirectory contained
under the disklist entries:
.ora
.dbf
.dmp
.dmp.gz.xx
It seems that the safest way is:
*.ora
*.dbf
*.dmp
*.dmp.gz.*
without the initial
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:41:37PM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
I want to know what the exclude list should look like to make sure I exclude
all files with these extensions in any directory/subdirectory contained
under the disklist entries:
.ora
.dbf
.dmp
.dmp.gz.xx
It seems
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 10:54:07AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
No there really is a difference between excluding /foo, ./foo, and foo.
As you are backing up ., /foo will not match anything.
Of course
./foo will match any foo in the top level directory .
foo will match any foo in any
to confirm whether or not I could have used the entries
without ./ and what the difference between the different sets of entries
would be.
Thanks very much.
Joe
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Exclude-list-entries-tf1936459.html#a5305717
Sent from the Amanda - Users forum
, in
any subdirectory that you are backuping.
The exclude list is handed as-is to gnu-tar, so one way to make sure
it does what you want is to try it with gnu-tar manually.
Best regards,
Olivier
directory .
foo will match any foo in any directory under .
The exclude list is handed as-is to gnu-tar, so one way to make sure
it does what you want is to try it with gnu-tar manually.
and it is fast if you do it to /dev/null, as in
gtar cvf /dev/null -exclude 'whatever' .
--
Jon H. LaBadie
Hello,
I've been struggling with this for a while. I have this defined in lots
of places now:
exclude list /usr/local/amanda/exclude.conf
e.g.
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
exclude
Kleinhoefstraat 5
B-2440 Geel
Tel: +32 14 57.00.90
Fax: +32 14 58.13.25
http://www.peopleware.be
http://www.mobileware.be
Owen Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19/10/2005 12:21
To
amanda-users@amanda.org
cc
Subject
Exclude list and tar on SUSE
OES.
Hello,
I've
Bert,
You did put the exclude file on the client, didn't you ?
http://www.amanda.org/docs/exclude.html#id2533384
Thanks, but yes.
Owen.
--
Owen Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work0116 2506349
Home0116 2259109
Mobile 0771 5790631
Senior Computing Officer | Software Engineer
Consultant
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.
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
.
And the exclude list file building is done as user amanda,
without suid root at that time.
But even in that case, I believe this should flag an error,
as implemented currently, otherwise the user would believe
he created an exclude file, while amanda silently ignores
it because she cannot read
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 amdump
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
the backups, so this confusion hasn't been critical. ;)
Then even more important to have amcheck complain.
There could be an existing, but unreachable or unreadable,
exclude list file that based on amdump reports and logs
would appear to be functional but in fact was not.
--
Jon H. LaBadie
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, 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.
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 Debian
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 instant
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
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
--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 item
shares,
which only root should be able to have full access to.
'optional' just means it's ok to not be there, but 'permission denied'
is an error and Amanda reports it as such.
That's not what the online man page seems to say:
If optional is specified for exclude list, then amcheck
setting
exclude list optional ./.amanda.excludes
Hmmm, would that really make a difference? Given a disklist entry like
/files/share, wouldn't that just cause it to look for
/files/share/./.amanda.excludes?
The optional means that the existence of the file is optional, not its
accessibility
for exclude list, then amcheck will not
complain if the file doesn't exist or is not readable.
The file is not readable (permission denied entering the directory that
contains is). Maybe it only checks for permission problems on the exact
file, and not on containing directories?
In my experience
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?
Graeme
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?
I'd have to peek at the docs/source to be certain of this,
but I haven't done so.
While runtar is setuid root, I don't
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
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.
But Amanda does
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.
But what about
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
with using it, a full path to the excludes
file was needed, such as /amanda/.amanda-excludes.
'optional' just means it's ok to not be there, but 'permission
denied' is an error and Amanda reports it as such.
That's not what the online man page seems to say:
If optional is specified for exclude
error out on an optional exclude list if it can't get
into the directory the exclude list is supposed to be in?
Graeme
--
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)
99.35% setiathome rank
--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 file,
are overwritten.
as exclude list, if some users update me that some directories in their
home are not supposed to be backup, but it was backup before. Does the
next amdump run redo the dump not to include that directory or only only
when it detects more changes in that directory? Would it exclude
of the absolute path to the exclude
file, but just the name of the file:
exclude list exclude.list
So each user needs to create this file and has full authority to change
it. The effect I saw (from amcheck) is that it will try to find that the
file in each of the DLE that uses that dumptype
of the absolute path to the exclude
file, but just the name of the file:
exclude list exclude.list
So each user needs to create this file and has full authority to change
it. The effect I saw (from amcheck) is that it will try to find that the
file in each of the DLE that uses that dumptype
in the backup process. From the howto and some trial I
can specify in the dumptype, instead of the absolute path to the exclude
file, but just the name of the file:
exclude list exclude.list
So each user needs to create this file and has full authority to change
it. The effect I saw (from amcheck
Is it possible to use todays date as element in a filename in an exclude
list?
--
Regards,
Erik P. Olsen
exclude list syntax depends on your dump/tar/smbtar...usually, no. All you
get is wildcards pretty much.
--On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 22:09 +0100 Erik P. Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is it possible to use todays date as element in a filename in an exclude
list?
--
Regards,
Erik P. Olsen
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:09:04PM +0100, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Is it possible to use todays date as element in a filename in an exclude
list?
You can have multiple exclude statements, IIRC, at most one can omit the
append argument. Given that, you could have one exclude statement
read a file
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 17:13 -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:09:04PM +0100, Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Is it possible to use todays date as element in a filename in an exclude
list?
You can have multiple exclude statements, IIRC, at most one can omit the
append argument
Hi
I have enabled the exclude list on the amanda.conf file and i am backing
up windows folders through samba.
My Dumptype is
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
exclude list /usr/local/etc/amanda
Hi,
amanda told you the problem:
samba does not support a exclude list in conjunction with amanda.
for backups using samba you can only define a single file to exclude.
The used client does not support more than one file to exclude, nor does
it support exclude-lists.
Christoph
Kaushal Shriyan
Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
Can any one help me in fixing the below error
...
ERROR: indus.mumbai.redhat.com: [samba does not support exclude list]
Means you cannot use exclude list with samba. (you may exclude one
file, not a list of files).
--
Paul Bijnens, XplanationTel
. You're limited by
the functionality of those programs. Or does dump on your system allow
excludes?)
Ok, I switched to 'tar' dumps, added this directive to amanda.conf:
exclude list /var/lib/amanda/.amanda_excludes
And on each client, I created this file. But even if I put stuff
Hi,
youl have to put relative paths in exclude list.
example:
mount-point/dir-to-backup is: /var
file to exclude:/var/tmp/example-file
entry in file: ./tmp/example-file
Christoph
Pascal Robert wrote:
I have two questions for you:
1) any owners of HP SureStore
list .amanda_excludes
in amanda.conf. But those directories are still being back up. This is
my dumptype definition:
define dumptype hard-disk-compress {
global
comment Back up to hard disk instead of tape - using dump
holdingdisk no
index yes
priority high
compress client fast
exclude list
of tape - using dump
strange comment, when you first ask if the DLT drive is fast enough :-)
holdingdisk no
index yes
priority high
compress client fast
exclude list .amanda_excludes
}
--
Paul Bijnens, XplanationTel +32 16 397.511
Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001
Paul Bijnens wrote:
Pascal Robert wrote:
I have two questions for you:
1) any owners of HP SureStore DLT vs80 unit here ? If yes, what kind
of performance do you have with amrecover. I did a recover this
morning, it took 67 minutes to recover a single 2 bytes file. The
backup take 7
Hallo!
The amanda man page states that the exclude list can be optional. So I defined
following dumtype:
define dumptype my-global {
comp-user-tar
exclude list optional .amanda.exclude.gtar
include list optional .amanda.include.gtar
}
But unfortunately, with this definition
Josef Wolf wrote:
define dumptype my-global {
comp-user-tar
exclude list optional .amanda.exclude.gtar
include list optional .amanda.include.gtar
}
But unfortunately, with this definition all the backups just fail on _all_
filesystems. Even those which actually contain
amcheck complaining about the samba exclude
list support.
I've never heard this before... but it would be annoying recompiling
ALSO Samba from source just to include a feature I don't need.
Can anybody explain me what this error means?
uranus:/usr/src/amanda-2.4.4# su backup -c /usr/sbin/amcheck
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 at 4:22pm, Fabio Corazza wrote
Can anybody explain me what this error means?
*snip*
Amanda Backup Client Hosts Check
ERROR: uranus.prosa.com: [samba does not support exclude list]
*snip*
It means what it says. In your dumptype, you have
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 at 4:22pm, Fabio Corazza wrote
Can anybody explain me what this error means?
*snip*
Amanda Backup Client Hosts Check
ERROR: uranus.prosa.com: [samba does not support exclude list]
*snip*
It means what it says
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 05:08:36PM -0500, Chris Dahn wrote:
Does the exclude list go on the server, client, or both?
From amanda_src_dir/docs/EXCLUDE:
** Utilize an Exclude List **
An exclude list is a file that resides on the CLIENT
machine and contains paths to be excluded
Is it possible to setup in include list like so
./NL-SFS3-02[4-9]
./NL-SFS3-03[0-2]
And only include these directories meaning if
they aren't any fo these directories don'ttry to back them up.
Craig Hancock
are you sure of this functionnality, because I tested the 2.4.3 with
multiple same disklist entry, like this:
80.65.xxx.yyy /home/test comp-user-tar-incr-adherent_a
80.65.xxx.yyy /home/test comp-user-tar-incr-adherent_b
(only excluding rule change in these 2 dumptypes)
but I
ok sorry, I found the example in example/disklist
it work fine :)
howener, I have noticed that server AND client machine must be in 2.4.3
version.
Brunet Eric wrote:
are you sure of this functionnality, because I tested the 2.4.3 with
multiple same disklist entry, like this:
80.65.xxx.yyy
hello,
I've been using amanda for one year, but now i have to save a large
directory(composed of a lot of subdirs) ( 10GB today).
At the beginning all worked fine(full and incremental dump)
report example:
80.65.xxx.xxx -e/adherent 0 10150780 9724672 95.8 91:50 1765.0 N/A N/A
Now the full
Hello Eric,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 03:59:14PM +0200, Brunet Eric wrote:
I tested with a wildcard file path and all worked fine; my idea was to
simulate hash dirs with the exclude option:
./[b-zB-Z]* - exclude which takes only subdirs begins by 'B' or 'b'
But when I applied these dumptypes
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:42:13PM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
Hello Eric,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 03:59:14PM +0200, Brunet Eric wrote:
I tested with a wildcard file path and all worked fine; my idea was to
simulate hash dirs with the exclude option:
./[b-zB-Z]* - exclude which
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:42:13PM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
Hello Eric,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 03:59:14PM +0200, Brunet Eric wrote:
I tested with a wildcard file path and all worked fine; my idea was to
simulate
for no-mirror-tar:
SNIP amanda.conf snippet
define dumptype no-mirror-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
compress client fast
comment usr partitions dumped with tar
exclude list .amanda-exclude.gtar
priority medium
}
SNIP
The global config only has a comment and 'index
:
SNIP disklist snippet
client /usr no-mirror-tar
SNIP
Here's the def for no-mirror-tar:
SNIP amanda.conf snippet
define dumptype no-mirror-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
compress client fast
comment usr partitions dumped with tar
exclude list .amanda
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 10:26:58AM -0500, pointer wrote:
I've checked the docs/FAQ/google/archives and I must be missing
something really simple. :\
I have an amanda client that I'm backing having problems backing up.
We're using tar for /usr on this client:
SNIP
/--
Frank,
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:50, Frank Smith wrote:
Your config looks correct to me.
What does '/usr/local/bin/tar --version' show?
SNIP
$ /usr/local/bin/tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.13
Copyright (C) 1988, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 1999 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.
This is free
On 11 Oct 2002 at 11:58am, pointer wrote
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:50, Frank Smith wrote:
Your config looks correct to me.
What does '/usr/local/bin/tar --version' show?
SNIP
$ /usr/local/bin/tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.13
Bad. Bad bad bad. If you're using indexing,
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 11:58:27 -0500 pointer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:50, Frank Smith wrote:
Your config looks correct to me.
What does '/usr/local/bin/tar --version' show?
SNIP
$ /usr/local/bin/tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.13
Joshua,
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:50, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Bad. Bad bad bad. If you're using indexing, they're broken. amrecover
won't work. Run, don't walk, to download 1.13.25 from
ftp://alpha.gnu.org.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'd seen this, but hadn't gotten around to
updating
On Friday 11 October 2002 12:58, Frank Smith wrote:
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 11:58:27 -0500 pointer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:50, Frank Smith wrote:
Your config looks correct to me.
What does '/usr/local/bin/tar --version' show?
SNIP
$
On Friday 11 October 2002 14:04, pointer wrote:
Joshua,
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:50, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Bad. Bad bad bad. If you're using indexing, they're broken.
amrecover won't work. Run, don't walk, to download 1.13.25 from
ftp://alpha.gnu.org.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'd
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 15:11:00 -0400 Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Friday 11 October 2002 12:58, Frank Smith wrote:
Possible unrelated problem for you: does anyone on the list
remember if tar 1.13 was one of the versions with the bad index
file problem (the infamous 'big
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 01:46, Martin Schwarz wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:44:35AM +0200, Martin Schwarz wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 04:00:31PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
The above looks as if you have the drives compression turned
on,
I have, although I should know better
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:44:35AM +0200, Martin Schwarz wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 04:00:31PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
The above looks as if you have the drives compression turned on,
I have, although I should know better about this - having read the list
for a while. Somehow I
Hello Gene,
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 04:00:31PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
The above looks as if you have the drives compression turned on,
I have, although I should know better about this - having read the list
for a while. Somehow I never thought about my own setup when reading
about the
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
