Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:28:55 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: backing up ACLs Message-ID: <3FF08E87.2040003@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <20031229185327.GB22084@seekingfire.com> References: <3FE93499.7060307@freebsd.org> <000a01c3c9f3$004c9280$b901320a@komi.mts.ru> <3FF07379.70101@acm.org> <20031229185327.GB22084@seekingfire.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tillman Hodgson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:33:29AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>It's a tar implementation that handles ACLs, >>file flags, sparse files, etc, etc, and might >>be a workable substitute for dump/restore. > > With respect, tar variants are not a direct replacement for dump > variants. I suspect that when you said "workable substitute" it should > be read as "substitute requiring a fair amount of work" ;-) I should have said "might allow you to backup systems using ACLs *today* while you wait for dump/restore to be updated." Clearly, dump/restore do need to be updated, and I did not intend to claim that any tar implementation was a direct substitute for any dump implementation. That said, however, if you're used to crufty old BSD tar or crufty new GNU tar, you might be surprised at what a good modern tar implementation can do. Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FF08E87.2040003>