Re: [Bug-tar] more on woes with --listed-incremental

[Joerg Schilling]

Helmut Waitzmann <address@hidden> wrote:

> >gtar puts a/y into the archive and it should not, it is doing it because
> >it saw dir a's time stamp changed, but then apparently not comparing
> >y's time to a's i guess.
>
> If tar compared './dir/a/x's time of last status change with './dir/a's
> time of last data modification it would not detect the necessity to
> archive './dir/a/x' again in order to reflect the change of its name.
>
> Can tar on a system, where renaming a file doesn't update its last status
> change time, detect, that './dir/a/x' must be archived again, whereas
> './dir/a/y' need not be archived again?

tar does not do this at all, I am not sure about gtar but I would recommend 
to use star in case you like to do incrementals. Star does the right things in
case that either mtime or ctime of the parent directories of the renamed files
are touched. 

And btw: star creates smaller archives because it does not need to archive the
whole hierarchy in case if renamed directories.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:address@hidden (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       address@hidden                (uni)  
       address@hidden     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily