Re: Restoring from backup, preserving uids - Tools
This is a discussion on Re: Restoring from backup, preserving uids - Tools ; On 2-Aug-2008, at 13:15, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 20:42 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>> Just a note: I'd recommend also using -H to preserve hard links.
>> Traditionally a unix / linux system will have many ...
-
Re: Restoring from backup, preserving uids
On 2-Aug-2008, at 13:15, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 20:42 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>> Just a note: I'd recommend also using -H to preserve hard links.
>> Traditionally a unix / linux system will have many files hard-linked
>> (although a quick check shows less than I expected).
>
> Do you know of any case in which breaking hard links makes a system
> work
> incorrectly (as opposed to just taking up more space)?
I think it can. For example, on many systems, vi is a hard link to
either nvi or vim. If you break the link, and then update, bad things
can happen as vi will invoke an old version of vim or nvi which might
possibly not work at all with the current libraries.
Another problem would likely be with bash and sh, since sh is often a
hard link to bash (at least on OS X it is). Having sh be a different
version is probably not a Good Thing.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-
Re: Restoring from backup, preserving uids
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 00:04 -0600, lewis butler wrote:
> On 2-Aug-2008, at 13:15, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > Do you know of any case in which breaking hard links makes a system
> > work
> > incorrectly (as opposed to just taking up more space)?
>
> I think it can. For example, on many systems, vi is a hard link to
> either nvi or vim. If you break the link, and then update, bad things
> can happen as vi will invoke an old version of vim or nvi which might
> possibly not work at all with the current libraries.
On my Fedora 9 system, vi and vim are different binaries and there is no
nvi. I scanned for all multiply-linked files on the root filesystem,
and except for some system-config-network files that I'm not using any
more, all the links to each file came from the same RPM package, so RPM
would presumably update the links correctly.
> Another problem would likely be with bash and sh, since sh is often a
> hard link to bash (at least on OS X it is). Having sh be a different
> version is probably not a Good Thing.
On my brother's OS X system, sh and bash are different binaries.
Matt
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAkigP0MACgkQC+xSYN/Rlfv79QCeJClq30w5jSlHaEw5atKtMBtP
5akAnjklZKDRuRQTiG4L9hC6RlUoWMVq
=ZIuT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: Restoring from backup, preserving uids
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > Another problem would likely be with bash and sh, since sh is often a
> > hard link to bash (at least on OS X it is). Having sh be a different
> > version is probably not a Good Thing.
>
> On my brother's OS X system, sh and bash are different binaries.
They're different on Ubuntu Linux too.
-- Jamie
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
