Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could you explain why you believe this is relevant? > > My impression is that an archive from a/b a/dot/../b cannot > > be restored correctly in case that the symlink dot is missing from > > the archive or even archived only after the named two files. > > It was just a toy example. But I think the idea is that a/b a/dot/../b > are both like mount points, i.e., they are both directories that are assumed > to > be present during both a dump and a corresponding restore.
OK, but I believe it is best to avoid this at all in incrementals. > > I am still sure that the decision for star (to require "-C dir .") > > for a "dump" is a useful decision that helps to prevent archives > > that cannot be restored. > > This sounds like a tradeoff between ease-of-use and idiot-proofing, > which is a design space with more than one reasonable solution. I am not convinced that there is a need to have a single incremental that spawn more than one filesystem. Star did have thousands of successful real life incremental dump/restore cycles cince May 2005 (after the last bug was fixed) with man gigabytes of data for each incremental. I believe the idea of "make if simple and correct" was a good decision. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
