duplicity-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Duplicity-tracker] [bug #25426] Wishlist: another syntax for having fil


From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: [Duplicity-tracker] [bug #25426] Wishlist: another syntax for having files / directories excluded
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:08:04 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008121622 Ubuntu/8.10 (intrepid) Firefox/3.0.5

URL:
  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25426>

                 Summary: Wishlist: another syntax for having files /
directories excluded
                 Project: duplicity
            Submitted by: tschwinge
            Submitted on: Mi 28 Jan 2009 17:08:03 CET
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

I would like to have the following enhancement implemented:

Quoting from a GNU tar manpage:

    [...] option [...] `--exclude-tag' [...] takes a single
    argument, a file name to look for.  Any directory that
    contains this file will be excluded from the dump.  [...]
    
    `--exclude-tag=FILE'
      Do not dump the contents of the directory [...]

This allows for manually putting tag files, perhaps named `.no_backup', into
specific directories that contain volatile data that need not be backed-up,
but potentially does occupy a substantial amount of disk space.  Think, for
example, about the Firefox web cache, pristine checkouts of source
repositories (GCC SVN trunk currently is at 1.2 GiB...), easily-recreatable
build directories (again roughly 500 MiB for a most simple GCC build
configuration), etc.


As a further enhancement, these tag files could also have their content
examined and interpreted.  See the rsync manpage for how this might be done,
section FILTER RULES.


Do you think this would be difficult to implement?  The latter one, yes, I
think.  But the first proposal should be easily doable, I think. 
(Unfortunately, I lack both Python programming skills and time.  I would, of
course, be willing to help with testing, etc.)




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25426>

_______________________________________________
  Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]