Author: Matt Lung <matt.lung AT midwest-tool DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:25:13 -0500
I have hard disk backups setup using amanda on Fedora Core 3. Everything is great except when I use amrecover. Trying to restore an old file I will get tar errors like this: tar: ./dir/somefile: inva
Author: Andreas Sundstrom <sunkan AT zappa DOT cx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:47:22 +0100
tar: ./dir/somefile: invalid sparse archive member tar: Skipping to next header tar: Archive contains obsolescent base-64 headers Do I need to dump the vanilla tar (1.14.4), and compile from a specia
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:36:54 -0500
Its been tested (tar-1.14's) and found wanting. However, I've been using the latest 1.15-1 for about 3 days now with no detected problems. If not that, then back up to 1.13-19 or 1.13-25, both are kn
Author: Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:40:08 +0100
tar: ./dir/somefile: invalid sparse archive member tar: Skipping to next header tar: Archive contains obsolescent base-64 headers Do I need to dump the vanilla tar (1.14.4), and compile from a specia
Author: Matt Lung <matt.lung AT midwest-tool DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:43:05 -0500
Quoting Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>: Roll back to that RPM version build for Fedora, or abandon the RPM and go with source? -- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messagi
Author: Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:51:48 +0100
If not that, then back up to 1.13-19 or 1.13-25, both are known good with amanda. Roll back to that RPM version build for Fedora, or abandon the RPM and go with source? Personnally, I dislike RPM's.
Author: Matt Lung <matt.lung AT midwest-tool DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:11:13 -0500
Quoting Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>: I guess my question is... is there a difference between the RPM version and the compiled version that would make it work? From a systems sta
Author: Matt Lung <matt.lung AT midwest-tool DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:32:05 -0500
Quoting Andreas Sundstrom <sunkan AT zappa DOT cx>: thats correct... I can from the command line extract the archive that was made, but amrecover stops me with that error. What is it about this versi
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:14:08 -0500
Probably whatever is the handiest for you Matt. I'm not allergic to srcs, but some are. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please us
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:46:03 -0500
Well, on that subject, the huge majority of us here have found that amanda is much better off built from srcs. The defaults that come with the rpms are quite often less than "optimum" shall we say. c
Author: "Stefan G. Weichinger" <monitor AT oops.co DOT at>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:22:16 +0100
Hi, Gene, on Donnerstag, 20. Jänner 2005 at 01:46 you wrote to amanda-users: I will do some "grep gene-script amanda-users-archive" sometimes ... This will be added to the docs: - configure and make
The latter in an OS-specific manner I trust. -- Jon H. LaBadie jon AT jgcomp DOT com JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Author: Eric Siegerman <erics AT telepres DOT com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:18:52 -0500
I don't believe this is necessary. One should avoid building Amanda as root, but that's not because it'll cause problems for Amanda; it's for the same reason one should avoid building *anything* as r
Sorry for hijacking a thread, but playing devil's advocate here, what difference does it really make whether you build as root or not if you run 'make install' as root? How many people actually go th
You have said it yourself, as ordinary user you limit the possible problems. Have you never looked at a file with an editor and inadvertently modified it? Don't you ever do little changes to the code
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:05:23 -0500
This is correct, but maybe you wouldn't want the normal user to be a member of group disk? Thats the main reason I can see for a seperate user 'amanda' who is a member of group disk, or maybe backup.
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:09:10 -0500
wrote: You will have the wrong permissions all over the place if you build amanda as root. Only the install should be done as root. This is basic security. Go ahead, build it as root and install it.
Author: Eric Siegerman <erics AT telepres DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:01:29 -0500
Agreed 100%! "erics" isn't a member of "disk". (Sorry I didn't mention that. I agree with the above so fully that the possibility never even occurred to me. :-) The reason I mentioned building under
Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:51:13 -0500
Pretty good question, Eric. I'll modify my config script to reject root rather than demand amanda, or something along those lines and give it a shot. Actually, it now rejects root and tells you to us
Author: Eric Siegerman <erics AT telepres DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:06:03 -0500
That's my understanding. Kind of makes sense. And it's certainly how the permissions are set up here: -rwsr-x-- 1 root operator 87183 Apr 23 2004 /usr/local/sbin/amcheck (Our Amanda server is a FreeB