From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 13:12:16 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A009348; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF17EB8; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WLY5t-0006rM-5J; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:12:13 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, "Mark Felder" Subject: Re: bsdtar POLA change in 10.0? References: <53171DAE.5070203@li.ru> <1394110822.21224.91297125.0B659AFB@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:12:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1394110822.21224.91297125.0B659AFB@webmail.messagingengine.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Win32) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: c74461a82029b6293650421ecb57b64a X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:12:16 -0000 On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:00:22 +0100, Mark Felder wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 6:50, Marat N.Afanasyev wrote: >> I wonder why >> >> bsdtar --one-file-system >> >> suddenly started to skip archiving of mount-points? And no mention of >> such behaviour change either in UPDATING or errata :( >> > > --one-file-system > (c, r, and u modes) Do not cross mount points. > > Isn't that what it's supposed to do? Skip any mounted filesystems? Was > it broken before? Or do I simply not understand the behavior you're > seeing. The question is if the mountpoint (directory in the 'current' filesystem) itself should be tarred. After untarring you can than make the same mounts again, for example. Ronald.