On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008 10:42:39 Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think the best suggestion that I have seen for the name is (at
>>> least in the current context):
>>>
>>> Exclude Dirs Containing = .no_backup
>>>
>>> That seems to me to be a very good name.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> Concerning the placement of the directive: I think it is worth
>>> examining if we can easily move it to the Exclude { } section. In
>>> that case, the directive name could be
>>>
>>> Exclude {
>>> Dirs Containing = .no_backup
>>> ...
>>> }
>>
>> in that case, I think it would be natural to allow:
>>
>> Include {
>> Dirs Containing = .please_back_me_up
>> }
>
> Unfortunately, a "Dirs Containing" within an Include section is not
> possible.
> Without going into all the details, simply try to imagine an
> algorithm to
> implement -- not possible, IMO.
Thinking about it only briefly, it becomes difficult to do because the
sysadmin
needs to put such a file in every parent directory from the root of
the File Set
entries down to the directory required to backup.
The could would need to look at the Root of the File Set entry to see
if there
is a .please_back_me_up file. If none, stop recursing.
But seriously, I don't think this one makes much sense to implement.
Bacula
has other ways to implement the same thing.
--
Dan Langille
http://langille.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
