Re: hdup 2.0.1 argggg

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 11:11 +0100, Miek Gieben wrote:
> [On 16 Nov, @ 20:22, Hdup wrote in "[hdup-user] hdup 2.0.1 argggg ..."]
> > I will release 2.0.2 tomorrow as a brown paper bag release...
> 
> grrummble, Man _does_ gnu tar suck. You cannot feed tar a filelist and
> expect incremental backups to work. If you feed tar a filelist without
> directories, it will backup the current working directory.

Does this mean we should move back to 1.6 for production use, if we want
to have working incrementals?

> I'm seriously looking into replacing gnu tar all together. This would
> either mean using star, implementing a tar algo myself or using some
> other tar implementation out there...

I wish I had anything helpful to offer here, but I haven't come up with
anything.  Tar's --listed-incremental does seem to have some important
advantages over just checking modification times, and star seems to be
working on support for incrementals but it isn't there yet.  Doing it
all yourself is a big job.

Maybe it would be worth an email to the folks maintaining star or tar to
see what it would take for them to support the features you need... it
might be easier to patch an existing program rather than write a new
one.

Bng