On Saturday 27 January 2007 09:14, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
>> Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
>>> googled a bit and found notes about a bug in 2.4.4, but I am unsure
>>> if I hit this particular one.
>>
>> Could anyone *please* let me know if this problem would be avoided
>> with a more recent release of Amanda?
>
>So noone knows if there are releases out there that are known to archive
>defective tarballs?
>
>IMO it would be the least to mark these releases as buggy ones, to make
>clear which installations should upgrade to get valid restores again,
>and which installations would just need to upgrade for new features or
>something.
>
>But it seems that this interests noone but me.
>
>Stefan

I believe that more of the blame for defective backups can be laid at the 
gnu.org's (miss)handling of tar than at amanda's doorstep. Amanda has 
always had the possibility that something would sneak in, and it did at 
least twice on my watch, but was fixed each time in good time, less than 
a week IIRC.

Tar on the other hand, has caused us no end of headaches and I've often 
wondered if we would be better off using star.  I think its probably very 
good code, but Jeorg Schiling(sp) is such a difficult person to deal with 
that the ever buggy tar is perceived as the better choice.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.