>  | If your intent is to restore the lp subdirectory and all of its
>  | files, then "restore /etc/lp/* -subdir=yes" is the correct syntax.
>
>  Thanks.  I will file this away as a workaround, even though that's not
>  the syntax that the docs suggest.
>
>  | "restore /etc/lp -subdir=yes" tells ADSM to restore all objects
>  | called 'lp' in /etc and any of its subdirectories.
>
>  Is this logic in the client, or the server?  If it's in the client, it
>  would be nice if the UNIX client was changed to more closely follow
>  UNIX conventions.

>  For example, take these two commands (both of which will descend a
>  directory tree)
>
>      $ find /etc/lp -print
>      $ ls -R /etc/lp
>
>  both find everything under /etc/lp, rather than anything in the /etc
>  tree that contains the word lp.
>
>  | Incidentally, the '-subdir=yes' also causes *all* directory entries
>  | under /etc to be restored, as well. This latter behavior has been
>  | modified in the V3 client so that your command would cause only
>  | objects (files and directories) called 'lp' within the /etc
>  | directory structure to be restored.
>
>  I'm glad it's being corrected.  Frankly, though, I still don't see the
>  logic in '/etc/lp' matching files named 'lp' anywhere under /etc.  For
>  that feature, I would recommend
>
>       /etc/.../lp

>  which is what include/exclude file would use.  That syntax makes more
>  sense, and would be more consistant, although it still is vulnerable
>  to unix objects named literally '...', which is a perfectly valid name.


I agree that the UNIX-like syntax is nicer but it relies on the local
filesystem to fill in the missing pieces.  For example /etc/lp can look
out on the local filesystem and see that lp is a dir and therefore add the
'/*' internally.  If lp is a file on the local filesystem then it does not
add the '/*' internally and shows the 'lp' file.

We thought it very important to keep a consistent syntax between the backup
and restore.  In other words any filespec used to backup will also work on
the restore (and archive/retrieve).  In addition the same restore command
on one system will work the same on another system.  It will also work the
same on a system that had a hard drive corruption.  The same is not true for
the
UNIX-like syntax (but in that case it does not have too - the files are
gone!).

If we don't use this syntax then a restore of /etc/lp will produce very
different results in a directory when the
dirs/files are no longer there (usually the best time to have a backup product
like ADSM :-)
In this case 'No Founds Found' would be issued.

David Derk
ADSM Development