On Monday 19 August 2002 20:47, John Ouellette wrote:
>Ok, now that's interesting...  I'll agree that the fact that
> you're using 2.4.3b3 and aren't having problems indicates that
> you're right. However...  The comments in the amanda.conf file
> say:
>
>"Note that the `full pathname' of a file within its
>filesystem starts with `./', because of the way amanda runs
>gnutar: `tar -C $mountpoint -cf - --lots-of-options .' (note
>the final dot!)  Thus, if you're backing up `/usr' with a
>diskfile entry like ``host /usr gnutar-root', but you don't
>want to backup /usr/tmp, your exclude list should contain
>the pattern `./tmp', as this is relative to the `/usr' above.
>Please refer to the man-page of gnutar for more information.
>If a relative pathname is specified as the exclude list,
>it is searched from within the directory that is
>going to be backed up."

Which refers to the CONTENTS of the exclude file.

>The man page says:
>
>" For exclude list, If the file name is relative, the
>disk name being backed up is prepended.  So if this
>is entered:
>
>           exclude list ".amanda.excludes"

Ohmygawd, who wrote that??  Never mind, I don't wanna know that 
badly cause it would cause my faith in the real authors to slip a 
notch.

The meaning somehow got lost in the translation to english at least 
as I understand it and I've been speaking it for 67 of my nearly 68 
years!  In the first place (IIRC) amdump itself actually cd's to 
each directory in a tree, backing up each and every subdir in that 
subdir using tar, with tar itself skipping the subdirs that match 
in the ./here format from the listing in the exclude file.

So the CONTENTS of the exclude file are then stated in a format 
relative TO the current directory.

No wonder its confusing the troops here, gaahhck!

>the actual file use would be  /var/.amanda.excludes
>for  a  backup of /var, /usr/local/.amanda.excludes
>for a backup of /usr/local, and so on."

I think we are getting the fact that I'm argueing to the point of 
boreing this whole list for a full pathlist arguement leading to 
the exclude file, with the exclude files actual contents.  Apples 
vs Oranges, or was it kiwi fruit...  Whatever.

>These suggest that the exclude pattern, whether as a exclude
> pattern or a file containing a list of patterns, is supposed to
> have *relative* pathnames, not absolute pathnames.  Yes, your
> list is relative, but your path for the exclude list file itself
> is absolute
>(/usr/local/etc/amanda/exclude.gtar) which is not quite what the
> docs recommend....

Again, the pathlist TO the exclude file is absolute.  BUT,
The contents of the exclude file are relative to ./

The docs don't say in plain language that the exclude files location 
is relative, anyplace in them.  They assume, and rightly so IMO, 
that the location is an absolute, just as the location of any other 
file in the system is barring the installation of links by the 
thousands all over the system pointing back to the real file.

>I'll try some absolute paths later: if they work, it suggests a
>documentation bug, rather than a coding one...

See above, that particular paragraph would be better off if excised 
from the docs rather than to continue its confusion facter.  I'm 
not normally one to beat on the doc writers as its generally a 
rather thankless job anyway,  but I could make an exception this 
one time.

[... way past time for a snippage party here folks]

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.12% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly