Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > What if I change the kernel and prevent ctime-changes if only st_nlink
> > was changed?
>
> Wouldn't it be easier, and have less unknown impact, to change the
> program making the hard links to read-link-write ctime, preserving it?
If you did change the ke
Peter Koch wrote:
> Dear Joerg:
>
> Thank's for the quick response. In the meantime I have tried
> star which I had not used before. Wonderful programm but its
> decision on which files will be included into an incremental
> backup seems to be based on the same algorithm that gtar is
> using - i.
Hi Peter,
> What if I change the kernel and prevent ctime-changes if only st_nlink
> was changed?
Wouldn't it be easier, and have less unknown impact, to change the
program making the hard links to read-link-write ctime, preserving it?
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
On 07/14/2018 01:00 PM, Peter Koch wrote:
> What if I change the kernel and prevent ctime-changes if only
> st_nlink was changed?
>
> Would that have any unexpected side-effects?
Well, you'd violate POSIX, and there are (admittedly unusual) cases
where incremental dumps would silently lose data. B
"bug-...@naev.de" wrote:
> Dear tar-experts
>
> I observed lots of files that where included in incremental
> tar files without beeing modified. And it seems that the
> reason is a modfied hardlink count of these files.
Not only gtar, but also star adds files in case that the "ctime" of those
fi
