From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Mar 25 12:01:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA04997
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com (jekyll.piermont.com [206.1.51.15])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04987
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [[UNIX: localhost]] ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29711; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:00:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199703252000.PAA29711@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: [[UNIX: localhost]] didn't use HELO protocol
To: "Chris G. Demetriou" <cgd@cs.cmu.edu>
cc: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au>, hackers@freebsd.org,
        port-i386@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: Dilemma. how to store DOS directories ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:09:34 EST."
             <19193.859313374@auchentoshan.pdl.cs.cmu.edu> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:59:54 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


"Chris G. Demetriou" writes:
> > I feel a restore_msdos is necessary but what do others think ?  (That
> > is remember there could be non-FAT16 information to restore, long file
> > names, etc (which NetBSD is meant to support but I haven't yet checked that
> > out).
> > 
> 
> I'd agree, but because 'dump' and 'restore' were meant to be
> FFS-specific, and have in the past been arbitrarily changed to match
> FFS formats.
> 
> Given that the various FAT formats aren't really related, it seems
> like a bad idea to try to wedge them into normal 'restore' (or 'dump,'
> for that matter).

I wonder if gtar's facilities for doing incremental dumps aren't more
suitable to dumping FAT file systems than dump is...

Perry