On Wednesday 08 March 2006 08:43, Dave Ewart wrote:
>On Wednesday, 08.03.2006 at 07:35 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >On the client being backed-up:
>> >
>> >$ tar --version
>> >
>> >tar (GNU tar) 1.14
>>
>> We believe this version of tar is borked.  Please get the older
>> 1.13-19, 1.13-25, or the newer 1.15-1.  For whatever reason, 1.14
>> was only visible on gnu.org for about 5 or 6 weeks, being replaced
>> with 1.15-1, which for gnu.org, considering the speed they normally
>> run at, is instantainious.  I've been running 1.15-1 since about a
>> week after it became available without problems.
>
>Interesting.  Do you think that the behaviour I'm seeing is solely as
> a result of 'tar' here?
>
>Is the behaviour I describe something that you believe *should* *not*
>happen with AMANDA when using 'tar'?
>
I do not know this for a fact.  ISTR the file headers it made weren't 
correct and recovery failures were the result.  Possibly someone else 
can elaborate here?

>This package of 'tar' is the current default in Debian/Sarge and is
>updated with various security issues without changing the version
>number, so it's not entirely clear what version is really there under
>the hood.

Which is exactly why I get this stuff (both tar and amanda) from the src 
and build my own.  It Just Works(TM). :)

In this case I put the new version in /usr/local/bin & reconfigured & 
rebuilt amanda to look for it there, this so I could switch back if I 
needed to.  But I never did need to.

>Dave.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.