From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 15:25:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F4616A4B3 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C2643FD7 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:25:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from 64-144-229-193.client.dsl.net ([64.144.229.193] helo=[192.168.0.13]) by smtp.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.22) id 1A4pPT-000CdU-W7; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:25:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:25:27 -0700 From: Pat Lashley To: Chuck Swiger , Jamie Message-ID: <2156421632.1065047127@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> In-Reply-To: <3F7B0D5C.7080009@mac.com> References: <20031001122603.B71418-100000@floyd.gnulife.org> <3F7B0D5C.7080009@mac.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Scan-Signature: 451b5576b9beaec534909b22dea7a9744687470c X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Spam-Score-Int: -13 X-Spam-Report: -1.3/5.0 This mail has matched the spam-filter tests listed below. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for details about the specific tests reported. In general, the higher the number of total points, the more likely that it actually is spam. (The 'required' number of points listed below is the arbitrary number above which the message is normally considered spam.) Content analysis details: (-1.30 points total, 5 required)header IN_REP_TO (-0.5 points) Has a In-Reply-To header quoted email text REPLY_WITH_QUOTES (-0.5 points) Reply with quoted text AWL (0.7 points) AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar vs cp X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:25:34 -0000 --On Wednesday, October 01, 2003 13:22:36 -0400 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Jamie wrote: > [ ... ] >> I don't know what the actual rationale is for this. Can anyone >> explain why it is oftentimes better to tar something rather than >> using cp when copying directories and their contents? > > tar handles symbolic links properly, whereas cp will "copy through" the > contents of the link. Another technique is 'cd /source ; find . -print | cpio -pdmv /dest'. But none of the built in tools seem to preserve links, flags, and sparseness. If you want as close to a true copy as possible, check out the cpdup port. -Pat