On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 05:47:10PM -0600, Tim Mooney wrote:
> In regard to: Re: [Networker] directive to include certain file regex, A...:
> 
> >A +skipped directory isn't descended, so none of
> >the children can match.
> 
> Is that really true?  I was always under the impression that even with
> +skip, NetWorker did still descend into directories for one reason: to see
> if there were any later directives that countermanded the skip (namely,
> "forget").

Easy to test.  Get the save command and run it under truss/strace.
Should be immediately obvious if it's descending or not.

> The uasm(8) man page's coverage of +skip seems to strongly support your
> explanation, but nsr(5)'s explanation of the algorithm for applying ASMs
> doesn't appear to agree with uasm(8)'s explanation of +skip.

Which part of the algorithm doesn't agree?

To me the "problem" is that 'find' matching only affects printing (or
action) by default.  It has no effect on descent (unless you explicitly
use -prune or some other commands).  Whereas the algorithm in nsr(5)
only talks about matching and backups.  It doesn't to me appear to
discuss what might affect descent through the tree.

So to me I see that it says how it will match/not match for backup while
it is at a particular point, but not how those actions will affect it's
ability to move to another point.

>From long memory, I had assumed that skip on a directory does not
descend (similar to -prune) but null on a directory does.  But I haven't
tested that in quite some time.

-- 
Darren

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER